Q: What constitutes a conspiracy?
A: Whenever we hear the term “conspiracy,” images of dark rooms or back alleys, filled with smoke and unshaven henchmen usually come to mind. Perhaps you envision a scene not unlike something witnessed in the Godfather or on the Sopranos where two or more bad guys are deciding how someone is going to get “whacked.”
Your understanding of conspiracies, it is safe to say, comes largely from what Hollywood attempts to teach us. One of my favorite movies is Mel Gibson’s “Conspiracy Theory.” In that movie, Gibson plays a man who was programmed by the government to do its naughty bidding. Somehow, he gets away, but whatever deprogramming he was given failed to take. Thus, Gibson is a paranoid taxi driver, obsessed with a woman portrayed by Julia Roberts. No, Sidebar will not spoil the intrigue that results when the super-secret agency seeks to redeem Gibson and permanently deprogram him with the business end of a bullet. Suffice to say, despite its promising title, it is a horrible example of what is meant by a conspiracy.
A conspiracy, simply stated, is an agreement by two or more person to commit an unlawful act. With that definition, we hearken back to the dimly lit room filled with wayward ne’r-do-wells. A better understanding of what is meant by a criminal conspiracy is portrayed in the cheeky movies about Danny Ocean and gang – 11, 12, or 13 of them (take your pick). In each of the “Ocean’s” movies, we have a number of bad guys who, for some sick reason, greatly enjoy criminal activity, nearly lauding it to be as much of a calling in life as the priesthood might be.
The gang of 11, 12, or 13 get together, lay out plans of a casino, bank, house, or museum that plays host to an inordinate sum of money, and develop a plan to covertly relieve said edifice of all wealth stored therein. That is a conspiracy. Two or more people (in this case 11, 12, or 13) have agreed (with snarky dialogue) to commit an unlawful act (robbery, breaking and entering, wearing white after Labor Day, etc.).
But, as usual, Hollywood disappoints when it comes to truth in fiction. What the Silver Screen always displays as a long, drawn out, intricately planned conspiracy is usually not what happens. The law says that an agreement to commit an unlawful act need only exist for a mere moment in order to constitute a conspiracy. So, Jack could be walking down the street with Joe, see a car and say, “Hey, let’s steal this car.” If Joe say, “Ok, let’s,” a conspiracy has been created.
Importantly, co-conspirators share in the totality of the crime. Just because Joe did nothing more than ride in the passenger seat, while Jack picked the lock, hotwired the engine, and drove it to the docks, such passivity in conspiracy does not absolve Joe from being tried for the crime of conspiracy to commit grand theft auto.
Furthermore, conspiracy itself is a separate crime from the actual criminal activity. Thus, Jack and Joe can be tried for conspiracy to commit grand theft auto even if Patsy the Policeman catches them before they successfully execute the entire conspiracy.
Oh, sure, there is a whole lot more to the doctrine of conspiracy. But at least now you know that conspiracy is a whole lot more than something that involves big brothers, black helicopters, and super-secret spy agencies.
_______________
Copyright Jeremiah G. Dys 2007. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.
4 comments:
Sorry to hijack the comments, but I have a question: Is it not true that the First Amendment (and all other Amendments, for that matter) apply to Congress and to Congress only? And is it not also the case that Congress has taken what was originally intended to be a limit on its own power and turned it on its ear, using it to wield power against local authorities? I am thinking specifically of the "shall make no law...respecting the establishment of a religion" clause, though this applies to other clauses as well. Is it not rank defiance of the Constitution to treat it as a binding document toward anybody other than Congress?
Alicia,
Not sure how to answer your question, b/c I'm not sure I understand it.
The Bill of Rights apply to all citizens. That is, they secure the inalienable rights our Declaration of Independence suggests we posses in written form. Hence, we the citizenry can invoke any one of the provisions of the constitution and subsequent amendments. For instance, the 5th Amendment provides that we need not incriminate ourselves and have the right to remain silent on any matter in a court of law. The 2nd Amendment says we the citizens have a right to possess weaponry.
But, there is also a meaning of the word "apply" as you use it that may suggest that the Bill of Rights, in a sense, do apply only to Congress insofar as they do not apply, necessarily, in the private sector. Hence, private colleges can, within certain limitations, discriminate in the admissions process. That permits Evangelical Seminaries to refuse admission to Buddhists and traditional Black colleges to refuse White students.
But, when something is public, when something is intertwined with government, then the freedoms of the First and subsequent Amendments apply against Congress and/or any other branch of government.
In a sense you are correct. Congress is bound by the terms of the Constitution. Hence, the Supreme Court will, as the final arbiter of all things Constitutional, often overrule a Congressional Act b/c it infringes on the freedoms and guarantees made to the citizenry in the Constitution itself. So, yes, it does apply only to Congress.
You are also correct to suggest that the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) was designed to limit or, stated positively, provide the framework from within which the Federal Gov't was (is) permitted to operate. Beyond those parameters, gov't acts extra-Constitutionally. Further, Congress (liberalism, mainly) has upturned this notion and reversed the thought, suggesting that instead of limiting action, the Constitution mandates "x" action.
The Establishment Clause is a prime example. Where the Founders intended it to be a limitation on gov't, Liberalism has absconded the concept and inserted a new meaning, one that rejects any governmental recognition of the Christian religion. That thinking has allowed a bleed over into the Free Exercise clause such that when Christians attempt to utilize some of the basic freedoms guaranteed to all citizens, they are rejected out of hand b/c of the supposed "Separation of Church and State."
Therein lies the problem. Jefferson's words, "There is a wall separating Church and State," to the Danbury Baptists contemplated something entirely different from its modern-day interpretation. Rather than meaning that the State may not recognize and appreciate religion and even provide for its practice on public lands and programs, Jefferson meant that the State was not to influence the practice of the Church proper. In other words, it was not the role of government to compel religious practice. Instead, the role of government was to provide an opportunity for the full, free, unfettered practice of religion, and prevent all naysayers from disrupting such a practice.
That is a far cry different from what we see today.
In answer to your question, as I understand it to be, yes, the whole of the Constitution applies against Congress, guaranteeing the application of the freedoms secured therein to the people.
Seems like I've heard something like that before. Oh yes, that's right, the 10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
What I mean is this: The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, binds Congress, and Congress only. This being so, the State of West Virginia ought to be able to establish a state religion, right? Though most people would be scandalized by such a thought, the Constitution does not apply in any way to state and local governments, right? This is what makes me mad. When local school boards, city councils, and state legislatures cravenly submit to federal bullying, when the fact is, the states and local governments are not bound by the Constitution. Yes, I understand, it's a money thing. If local governments try to deviate from the Constitution, federal funds will be pulled. This is outrageous. The Constitution is being used by the feds to control local governments, instead of being used to reign in Congress.
To that, the answer might be, sort of. It's not quite so cut and dry. True, there are powers reserved to the state and to the people. The Founders contemplated a small Federal gov't with most issues being handled at the local (State) level.
Education is a prime example of this backwards thinking. The Federal gov't has mucked it up so horribly, it's nearly beyond repair. Decisions about a child's education were once the domain of the parent. Now, with our in loco parentis gov't, the gov't deems what is best for a child's education. That's not what the Constitution suggests. That is overstepping boundaries, in my mind. Those powers were not clearly enumerated to the gov't - Federal or otherwise.
As to religion, establishing a State sanctioned religion may be technically possible, but practically unrealistic. Because the 14th Amendment "privileges and immunities" clause, the 1st Amendment is applicable to the States as much as to the Fed. gov't.
Besides, WV adopted an even broader religious freedom clause than the 1st Amendment. In the WV Constitution, Article III, Section 15, it says, "No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever; nor shall any man be enforced, restrained, molested or burthened, in his body or goods, or otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument, to maintain their opinions in matters of religion; and the same shall, in nowise, affect, diminish or enlarge their civil capacities; and the Legislature shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district within this state, to levy on themselves, or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house for public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry, but it shall be left free for every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support, such private contracts as he shall please."
Certainly, that could be undone, but it would take a massive undoing. What is more, what would be the effect if it was undone? Gov't could be free to interfere with churches and synagogues and any other church entity, telling them precisely what to teach and how.
See, that is the fundamental difference. The liberal tends to think that the establishment clause acts to protect the church from influencing the state. The conservative sees it as preventing the state from telling the church what to do. B/c the liberal perspective has been largely adopted, we get worried when we see this hate crimes bill in Congress (and already on the books in WV). Why? Because it can essentially make it a hate crime to preach on what Paul said about Homosexual behavior in Romans. Don't believe me? Go to www.akegreen.org and read how this precise thing was done in Sweden. If you think this type of thing could never happen in the US, I would suggest you're being naive. (But, I don't think you would)
Does that make more sense? Read my column this coming Sunday. I take on this question in a little more detail.
Post a Comment