The Constitution is Not a Buffet
I took an oath to support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United
States. That oath didn’t come with exceptions. It didn’t say defend the
amendments you agree with and ignore the ones that are inconvenient. It
didn’t say defend some rights more vigorously than others. It said defend
the Constitution.
That means I support the First Amendment, whether I agree with what
someone is saying or not. I support the Second Amendment, whether
someone owns a firearm or chooses not to. I support the Fourth
Amendment because every American has the right to be secure against
unreasonable government intrusion.
Our constitutional rights are not granted by government. They are protected from government. That is why I have concerns about Flock camera systems.
I understand the argument in favor of them. We all want safe communities.
We all want law enforcement to catch dangerous criminals, recover stolen
vehicles, and solve serious crimes.
Public safety is one of the most important responsibilities of government. Our Founders understood something equally important: a government powerful enough to monitor
everyone is powerful enough to abuse everyone. The Fourth Amendment
was written because our nation’s founders had experienced general
warrants and broad government surveillance under the British Crown.
They intentionally placed limits on government power because liberty requires
those limits. Do we allow convenience to slowly erode liberty? I believe we should be
extremely cautious whenever government expands its ability to collect
information on law abiding citizens.
Some will say, “If you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear, but
that has never been the American standard. The American standard is that
government should have a reason before it intrudes on your privacy, not
that citizens must prove they deserve privacy.
That brings me to another issue many people in this community know well,
customary use. I have consistently opposed government taking private
property rights without following the constitutional process. I have
supported preserving public access where legal rights already exist, such
as the 75-foot public easement on Perdido Key, but I have opposed
expanding government authority beyond what the Constitution allows.
Why? Because property rights are constitutional rights.
Whether we’re talking about your home, your land, your vehicle, or your personal privacy,
the principle is the same. The Constitution is not a buffet where we pick the rights we like and ignore the rest. Every amendment matters. Every constitutional protection matters.
Every citizen deserves equal protection under the Constitution.
I believe elected officials should always begin with a simple question, does
this expand government power? And if it does, is that expansion truly
necessary, narrowly limited, transparent, and consistent with the
Constitution? Those questions are not obstacles to good government. They
are the foundation of good government.
Our freedoms have rarely disappeared all at once. History shows they are
often surrendered gradually, one reasonable exception at a time, until
people look back and wonder how they lost the rights they’ve taken for
granted.
I will continue to evaluate every issue through the same lens, is it
constitutional? Because if we are willing to compromise one constitutional
right today, we make it easier to compromise another tomorrow. I believe in
the entire Constitution. Not just the parts that are politically convenient. All
of them.
Respectfully,
Steve Stroberger
Escambia County
Commissioner, District 1
0
0
Comments