Why Congress Treats The Constitution Like A Toy
Imagine yourself as the parent of a willful, destructive child who lives to break things. Every rattle -- split. Every cup -- cracked. Every toy -- destroyed. Every stuffed animal -- ripped to shreds. All of this behavior is punctuated by continued whining and crying when objects presented to him somehow don't work any more.
Why then, on God's green earth, would any parent give the child a priceless vase, knowing it will be reduced to shards in a few moment's time, even if those few moments are a respite between tantrums?
I wouldn't. You wouldn't. But the Congress of the United States will. The passage by the House last week, and the expected passage by the Senate this week, of the latest assault on our Constitution is nothing more than trying to take the easy way out by rewarding bad behavior. It's a triumph of Congressional self-importance over the guardianship of our rights.
The Democratic "leadership" wanted a bill President Bush would sign. That was the bottom line. It wouldn't matter if the Constitution got trashed. It wouldn't matter if the government was given too much authority. These "legislators" had to legislate, or else they would be made to look bad by a president whose policies are now opposed by about 80 percent of the American people. Heaven forbid there's no new legislation and the government has to operate with the authority already in place. How would that look? To some people, just fine. On the other hand, while the House "leadership" basks in its legislative glories, the Republicans go preening to the press on how they snookered the other side. They are only partially right. It's not fooling someone if that person knows what's going on is stupid yet participates willingly. That's what happened here.
Of course it's not only the "leadership" who were behind this travesty. The whining, self-important "Blue Dogs," Democrats from "conservative" districts also pushed for it so they can flaunt their credentials as tough on terrorists and strong on defense. Come on, little Blue Puppies. It's time to "man up" and to "woman up" on this. Try defending the Constitution for a change. Quit whimpering and hiding and defend freedom and the document to which you swore an oath to protect and to defend.
It was evident to anyone looking at the bill that the legislation took the idea of a warrant out of the hands of the most indulgent court in the land -- the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court that grants every request for a wiretap. It's simply a matter that the authorities can't be bothered with the niceties any more. Never mind that existing law allows for wiretapping now, with a warrant soon after.
No, the Executive Branch got something more. Rather than have a court review whether a wiretap is necessary, this new bill only allows a court to decide whether it had been correctly requested. The wiretap is presumed to be legal by the people ordering the wiretap. There's a bit of circular logic there. The emergency wiretapping can only take place under "exigent circumstances," which, in theory, are to happen only rarely. As Rep. James Langevin (D-RI) put it during the House debate: "This legislation will only work if everyone involved follows the rules and remains within the confines of the law."
Langevin raises the relevant point here. Who, exactly, are we rewarding with this new authority, and what have they done to deserve it? Let's go down the ever-increasing and depressing list. It's not like anyone can forget what was going on at DoJ. We are reminded every day by some new disclosure that the Department became more politicized than at any time in its history. We can start with hiring lawyers based on ideology. We can continue with firing U.S. Attorneys because they decline to file bogus voter-fraud cases against Democratic candidates. How about dropping or settling big law suits against special interests? And then, the big kahuna, spying on American citizens without warrants or authorization, knowing that it was likely illegal but doing it anyway. This was the program that even John Ashcroft refused to approve from his hospital bed. That's the shorthand. Eric Lichtblau's excellent book, "Bush's Law: The Remaking of American Justice," lays it all out. News stories every day now tell the stories of the Kyles, Monicas, Bradleys and the rest of the kiddies remaking the Justice Department in their own image. There might be grown-ups in charge now, but the doctrine remains the same.
How do you expect an administration so riddled with ideology and incompetence to follow the rules? On what basis would you even think that they would do so, having gone to such great lengths to break the rules and ignore the rules in the first place?
And, having placed its institutional faith in the Executive Branch to carry out these precepts, what did Congress get in return? First, self-congratulations all around. They are proud of the "compromise" they carefully crafted. A number of speakers, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), said this wasn't a bill she would like, they defended it anyway and yes, she voted for it. No one doubts that compromise is often a necessity in complex legislation. There are trade-offs between amounts of tax breaks for one industry versus another. There are trade-off of one highway project for another, or a compromise on how one industry should be regulated. It's much harder to defend a "compromise" that throws away a basic Constitutional value on the basis that a bill needed to be passed.
But legislative craftsmanship wasn't the only point that Congress "won" in this bill. There will be increased oversight and reports to the Congress. Huzzahs abound!! The administration that produced an attorney general as a witness whose reticence was more like an organized-crime witness of the 1950s hearings than a public servant will have increased oversight. Congress can hold more hearings. They can write more letters. Those have been great an effective tools up until now, right? Quite the tradeoff -- bloviating versus the saving the Constitution. I can see how that might be appealing to the majority of members of Congress who think well of themselves. They have done such a terrific job so far.
We shouldn't forget that the large telecom companies, the ones which want to control the Internet, are given their get-out-of-jail-free card with this bill. All of the civil suits against them for wiretapping without authorization will be dismissed. However, they will "come out of this with a taint," Pelosi reminded us. Somehow that seems inadequate.
The Blue Dogs in the House and the "conservative" Democrats in the Senate will vote for the bill, and three will be blind quotes in the paper justifying those actions as necessary because they come from "conservative" areas and would be in danger of losing their seats. For the record, Bob Barr, the former Congressman and current Libertarian candidate for president opposes the FISA bill. He's got to be more conservative than most of the groups and constituents of whom you and our "leadership" are deathly afraid. Stop acting like little kids afraid of the big bullies. This is the Constitution we're talking about. It isn't child's play.
Follow Art Brodsky on Twitter: www.twitter.com/artbrodsky
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
@dsigeorge
"Michale, a home is where you have privacy...
Oh for chreest's sake. It's a MOVIE quote!!
It was a quote from the movie JUMPIN' JACK FLASH!! Whoopie Goldberg, Stephen Collins...
Get a grip people!!!
It's YOU people that seem to have all the fear... Between hysterical cries of the US Constitution being destroyed and irrational whinings about the Government listening to you complain about your feet corns to your Aunt Matilda, you people are nearly paralyzed with unfounded and irrational fear..
I think I can say this with absolute conviction
Jeezus H Chreest on a crutch, you people are paranoid..
Michale...
It happens one step at a time, my friend.
The founding fathers knew that power corrupts. That's why they voted for the Bill of Rights to protect people's personal papers from the government. That's why they gave the courts the power to enforce it.
You set up the environment to enable abuse of power, and sooner or later someone will do so. Today it's your letter to your Aunt about your corns, tomorrow it's your letter to your Senator to oppose the FISA bill.
Have you heard about how Bush filtered job applicants to the Department of Justice based on political beliefs and affiliations? Wouldn't it be swell, if some were of such a mindset, to know what websites an applicant visited, or who the emailed, or who they called, or whether they had an abortion, and so on?
Yea, and I also heard that Bush was the second gunman on the grassy knoll and actually was patient ZERO for the black plague..
I THINK he also has an overdue library book as well..
OH MY GOD!!!! THE HORROR OF IT ALL!!!
Sorry, you didn't deserve such sarcasm.. My sincere apologies.
But, seriously.
These measures deal acquisitions of foreign intel thru the targeting of foreign nationals.
Everyone needs to READ these measures.
THINK for yourself. Don't believe all the propaganda
Michale...
Your comments are ironic given the fact that it is fear that is the sole justification for these powers and shortcuts.
You really don't get it! That is not freedom.To
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom,-go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen
It's beyond comprehension. Why do we tolerate the party leaders' fears of conservative Dems? We should launch an all out assault on their offices in November. I'm sick and tired of Dems not acting like Dems when it comes to big issues such as the war in Iraq and now this latest cowardly stand on the surveillance issue. If I had my way the dead weight Blue Dogs as well as Pelosi and Reed would be back home writing memoirs.
Here, Here!!!
It's especially ironic to see Dodd whining and crying about these FISA Updates.
If he is all about "privacy" and such, why is he sponsoring a bill that will force all credit card companies to send all their transaction info to the government.
This INCLUDES transactions from places like AMAZON, EBAY/PayPal and GOOGLE CHECKOUT..
Now, granted Dodd might have some very good and legitimate reasons for this bill. I'll be damned if I can think of any, but hay.. It could be.
But, Dodd is not the champion of privacy that ya'all would like to THINK he is..
Michale...
OMG...you really are an expert at this! Stir the pot, throw in innuendo..
Sincerely: I wish you well.
so now you are abandonning a substantive argument to distract by arguing that Dodd is being hypocritical. So. Throw Dodd out. I care about the substance of this refusal to abide by the constitution--- not Sen Dodd.
Fair enough. The DODD post was in response to the "hero worship" I have read. I am glad we agree that Dodd is being hypocritic
As I have pointed out, there is no "refusal to abide by the Constituti
If you read the measures, you will see this to be true. If you refuse to educate yourself, then you are simply regurgitating the propaganda
Michale...
@Lemeritus
"What say I agree with Senator Boxer, who I support and respect? Certainly she is not "ignorant of the specific circumstances of this particular issue"
In other words, you simply agree with anyone that agrees with you..
When they STOP agreeing with you, then they are tossed away as a "disappointment" or a "sell out"...
Does that about sum up your position???
Michale...
Michale, I believe you took my words out of context.
You said: "If someone I support... comes to a conclusion that is different than the one I would come up with, the VERY FIRST thing I would have to consider is that maybe... my conclusion is wrong."
I said: "You assume that we all arrive at our conclusions free of prior reflection and conviction
I believe our business is finished, Michale. My position is that if anyone insults my intelligence they have neither my support nor my respect.
Oh jeeze, did I hurt your feelings??
Would you like me to point out to you some of the posts you directed at me in this and other threads?
I treat people in the exact manner they treat me. If someone is adult and respectful and mature, I respond in kind.
If someone posts to me in an insulting and derogatory manner, then that is what they get back.
The simple fact is, you simply cannot even conceive of the possibility that you might be wrong..
And, as I have stated, that is not principles talking.
That's ego.
Michale...
All I can say is it is about time the press took up this issue. Since the days of Oliver North and Iran/Contra the right has been pulling this stuff. You are so right to point out that the Congressional Representives who vote for this garbage have taken an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. But with all of the lies that this administration has gotten away with already what is one more? Anyone every here of Lame Duck?
I don't think Congress understands where they stand and how things have changed in the last few years. We need to show them that we mean business. Just because they are not Republicans doesn't mean they get to do whatever they want. They can be booted out just as easily as they got there... especially the House.
Why is BHO, the agent of change, backing this 1/2 hearted & 1/2 assed 'change' in FISA? Sen Feingold & others are prepared ro fillibuster to keep this bill off the Senate's floor & prevent a vote to pass this unconstitutional measure. Why isn't Sen Obama going to join Sen Feingold in a fillibuster to kill this bill? This bill is a bad bill, even with a compromise to protect the constitutional rights of Americans. Send the bill back for meaningful revisions to protect the rights of Americans.
larry lynch
Why? Because, for all of his flowery talk of "change" and "hope," Obama is, first and foremost, a politician, just like every other politician in Washington. It's about political expediency and MONEY.
I disagree..
Obama has constantly shown the wisdom and courage of doing what is RIGHT, even if it's not popular...
His support of these new FISA updates is simply one more example of this.
Michale...
I feel sorry for AMERICA and AMERICANS. They are going to need compassion and help when the other countries get rid of us. Ugly Americans - we are... Want it all at anyone's expense. God Bless if they truly believe in a god.
Me too. People had better wise up and I mean FAST. Kill this bill! NO Telco immunity! Make them pay. That goes for you too, Georgy. We're coming after ya. Maybe not before you're out of office, but guaranteed, we'll be watching ya! :|
Plus, the Constitution as promoted by the neocon "strict construction" idiots is certainly no toy, it's a contract of adhesion. Better it be used as a toy than imposed as boilerplate.
Oh come on. Compromise is necessary because Congress doesn't have a veto proof majority, and the repluguglycans are imposing a log jam. Compromise is also necessary because tyranny follows from it's absence. Compromise is also necessary because we do not live in a vacuum and cannot shout down reality with ideology, even if the ideology is correct and perfect, which none are. Those of on the left are more correct by far than that of the neocons, but we all have to play by the same rules of accommodation. We on the left have been so unable to agree among ourselves (more compromise is needed) that it should not surprise us that we can't get much done for arguing among ourselves. The bottom line is that we have the government we elected, got what we deserve, and ought to spend more time getting our collective act together and electing a super majority rather than flapping our ideological lips in the breeze. Quit cursing the darkness and going around trying to lead while walking backwards, appologetically.
If I might quote Glen Greenwald on Salon.com:
"The nature of a "compromise" is that neither side is happy with the outcome. Where, as here, one side is ecstatic and the other side is furious, that, by definition, is not a "compromis
"the power to engage in "vacuum-cleaner" surveillance of communications over U.S. telephone and email networks with no warrant requirement"
I have read the entire amendment.
I can assure you that there is NOTHING even remotely like what is stated in Salon.com...
NOTHING... ZERO... ZILCH... NADA....
Educate yourself. Don't believe the propaganda
Michale...
There is no need for compromise just as there is no need to change the existing FISA Act. The harm is in fooling with this very well written and thought out legislation.
The FISA act was done at the height of the cold war as a way to provide oversight for the targeting and acquisition of espionage related evidence. It was designed for working against foreign powers such as China and the USSR..
The FISA as it is, even updated, is ill-equipped to handle terrorist related CT ops.
It's really that simple...
Michale...
There are some things you just can't compromise on; this is one of them. If the Constitution is turned into toilet paper, we may as well quit calling ourselves Americans.
You DO realize that nothing in these new FISA procedures violate the US Constitution in any way, shape or form, right??
I realize that this fact will take a lot of winds out of the sails of the Hysterical Left...
But, these are the facts, whether you choose to acknowledge them or not.
Michale...
One problem with your logic,... the Congress didn't have to do ANY new legislation. They could have just sat there, and let the post 9/11 updates to FISA expire and go right back to the existing, tried & true (if still somewhat Unconstitutional) FISA statutes.
They don't need to worry about Bush vetoing a FISA bill,... they didn't have to pass a damned thing that could veto.
Exactly . . . FISA is fully intact and has continued to work just like it has for the past 2-3 decades since it was enacted to prevent out of control executive branches from trampling all over the Constitution. There is NO reason for this bill at all, compromise or no compromise.
I read this once,"Reasoned heresy is better than unreasoned orthodoxy". True then and true today.
If it were just Congress..
The only "taint" to come out of this is the "taint" that is now on the Democrats in Congress because in this so called compromise bill the telecoms "taint" going to pay for their crimes and the Bush administration "taint" going to to pay for theirs. And now because of the actions of our House Democrats our Democratic presidential candidate is beginning to get a whiff of that same "taint" on him. Way to go Democrats. You say you are protecting our rights but it's obvious that it just "taint" so.
Hat tip to my boyfriend who was born in the hills of Pike County, Kentucky for the idea about the use of the word "taint". He's a descendent of the McCoy family who most of you will remember had a rather historical fight with the Hatfields.
... these Congressional vermin are complicit.
there is no other rational excuse for this... except that Nancy P.'s ass is hanging in the wind of complicity
I despise you.
The "corrupt".
``SEC. 703. CERTAIN ACQUISITIONS INSIDE THE UNITED STATES TARGETING
UNITED STATES PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.
``(a) Jurisdiction of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court.--
``(1) In general.--
Court shall have jurisdiction to review an application and to
enter an order approving the targeting of a United States
person reasonably believed to be located outside the United
States to acquire foreign intelligence information, if the
acquisition constitutes electronic surveillance or the
acquisition of stored electronic communications or stored
electronic data that requires an order under this Act, and such
acquisition is conducted within the United States.
``(2) Limitation
this subsection is reasonably believed to be located in the
United States during the effective period of an order issued
pursuant to subsection (c), an acquisition targeting such
United States person under this section shall cease unless the
targeted United States person is again reasonably believed to
be located outside the United States while an order issued
pursuant to subsection (c) is in effect. Nothing in this
section shall be construed to limit the authority of the
Government to seek an order or authorization under, or
otherwise engage in any activity that is authorized under, any
other title of this Act.
Michale, the telcoms and the administration already VIOLATED this law. That's the point.
Then you are talking about the IMMUNITY ASPECT of these new measures..
OK, so you agree that these new measures do not have any Constitutional issues vis a vis eavesdropping, right???
Michale...
Sir,
You have proved the point with your post. It is unconstitutional. What difference does it make in country or out if government agencies can spy on it's own citizens with out some kind of judical oversight. Why create a separate court system to "over see"? Unless of course the use of such is just window dressing to allow an end run around the bill of rights. You know the part about unreasonable search and siezure.
The "separate court" has already been created... It's not up to the task, in my opinion, but the FISA court was created in 1978. That is the judicial oversight that you claim is lacking. And this oversight comes into play when an American citizen becomes involved in the process..
So, I fail to understand the issue here...
Michale...
You're not being fair, you're confusing Obama and the Democrats for Libertarians or someone like Ron Paul who says he respects the constitution.
Anyway, looking for the usual tit for tat thing that always happens in our two party system the only thing on this scale that comes to mind is the GAY marriage thing out in California. I know that's a stretch but it does fit the timeline and it's not totally out of the question. Also not completely out of the picture, look at the USSC ruling today on child rapists, but look even closer at the EXXON VALDEZ reduced punitive damages.
Lot's of ways deals could have been made. Government isn't just Congress you know.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
