Prof. Paul Eidelberg

In an age of ballistic-tipped thermonuclear weapons, the basic principles of democracy, including freedom of speech and of the press, due process of law, and limited government break down.

Imagine prosecuting an individual or a group of individuals for a hate crime when your country is threatened by Muslims who not only have access to weapons of mass destruction, but whose leaders gleefully chant “Death to America.”

How would a member of the American Civil Liberties Union react in a lawsuit against an Imam who uttered that malediction in a mosque? Would he invoke the “clear and present danger” doctrine associated with the First Amendment of the American Constitution, which liberals call a ”living constitution?

Would Muslims in America invoke that doctrine against limitations on their freedom to advocate the teachings of Islam, including that which regards Jihad as a major religious obligation?

It is well known to legal scholars that America has two constitutions, one for times of peace, and one for times of war. But they also know that there is no clear line between the two.

Although Senator Rand Paul is correct in saying that the Constitution invests Congress with the authority to declare war, would he engage in a debate on the Senate floor on that issue if, ten minutes after the commencement of the debate, the president pro tempore is informed that an Iranian ballistic missile is heading toward Washington, D.C.?☼