Posted on 10/18/2007 9:32:37 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)
HR 3835 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 3835
To restore the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 15, 2007
Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Select Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To restore the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings- Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Unchecked power by any branch leads to oppressive transgressions on individual freedoms and ill-considered government policies.
(2) The Founding Fathers enshrined checks and balances in the Constitution to protect against government abuses to derail ill-conceived domestic or foreign endeavors.
(3) Checks and balances make the Nation safer by preventing abuses that would be exploited by Al Qaeda to boost terrorist recruitment, would deter foreign governments from cooperating in defeating international terrorism, and would make the American people reluctant to support aggressive counter-terrorism measures.
(4) Checks and balances have withered since 9/11 and an alarming concentration of power has been accumulated in the presidency based on hyper-inflated fears of international terrorism and a desire permanently to alter the equilibrium of power between the three branches of government.
(5) The unprecedented constitutional powers claimed by the President since 9/11 subtracted national security and have been asserted for non-national security purposes.
(6) Experience demonstrates that global terrorism can be thwarted, deterred, and punished through muscular application of law enforcement measures and prosecutions in Federal civilian courts in lieu of military commissions or military law.
(7) Congressional oversight of the executive branch is necessary to prevent secret government, which undermines self-government and invites lawlessness and maladministration.
(8) The post-9/11 challenges to checks and balances are unique in the Nation's history because the war on global terrorism has no discernable end.
(b) Purpose- The American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 is intended to restore the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
SEC. 3. MILITARY COMMISSIONS; ENEMY COMBATANTS; HABEAS CORPUS.
(a) The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is hereby repealed.
(b) The President is authorized to establish military commissions for the trial of war crimes only in places of active hostilities against the United States where an immediate trial is necessary to preserve fresh evidence or to prevent local anarchy.
(c) The President is prohibited from detaining any individual indefinitely as an unlawful enemy combatant absent proof by substantial evidence that the individual has directly engaged in active hostilities against the United States, provided that no United States citizen shall be detained as an unlawful enemy combatant.
(d) Any individual detained as an enemy combatant by the United States shall be entitled to petition for a writ of habeas corpus under section 2241 of title 28, United States Code.
SEC. 4. TORTURE OR COERCED CONFESSIONS.
No civilian or military tribunal of the United States shall admit as evidence statements extracted from the defendant by torture or coercion.
SEC. 5. INTELLIGENCE GATHERING.
No Federal agency shall gather foreign intelligence in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). The President's constitutional power to gather foreign intelligence is subordinated to this provision.
SEC. 6. PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS.
The House of Representatives and Senate collectively shall enjoy standing to file a declaratory judgment action in an appropriate Federal district court to challenge the constitutionality of a presidential signing statement that declares the President's intent to disregard provisions of a bill he has signed into law because he believes they are unconstitutional.
SEC. 7. KIDNAPPING, DETENTIONS, AND TORTURE ABROAD.
No officer or agent of the United States shall kidnap, imprison, or torture any person abroad based solely on the President's belief that the subject of the kidnapping, imprisonment, or torture is a criminal or enemy combatant; provided that kidnapping shall be permitted if undertaken with the intent of bringing the kidnapped person for prosecution or interrogation to gather intelligence before a tribunal that meets international standards of fairness and due process. A knowing violation of this section shall be punished as a felony punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to 2 years.
SEC. 8. JOURNALIST EXCEPTION TO ESPIONAGE ACT.
Nothing in the Espionage Act of 1917 shall prohibit a journalist from publishing information received from the executive branch or Congress unless the publication would cause direct, immediate, and irreparable harm to the national security of the United States.
SEC. 9. USE OF SECRET EVIDENCE TO MAKE FOREIGN TERRORIST DESIGNATIONS.
Notwithstanding any other law, secret evidence shall not be used by the President or any other member of the executive branch to designate an individual or organization with a United States presence as a foreign terrorist or foreign terrorist organization for purposes of the criminal law or otherwise imposing criminal or civil sanctions.
EEE: I deny that paleoPaulie, the paleopipsqueak, is or ever will be a frontrunner. He is a quisling, a traitor, a two-faced fraud, and a mouthpiece for the enemy in time of war.
What is Ron Paul’s stance on Muslim immigration?
We know what Bush’s stance on it is...
The “If we don’t fight them over there means we will have to fight them over here” argument begs the question...why are we allowing Muslims to immigrate to this country in the first place??
Where has Paul ever said that signing statements per se are unconstitutional? Certainly not in this bill. Paul has only raised concerns about signing statements that say the President will not enforce part of a law he signs.
Anyone that cares about the Constitution should find those kinds of action by any President troubling.
Reading the bill, I had the distinct feeling that this was a grudge-inspired, personal Ron Paul vendetta against President Bush.
It has a sort of childish, vindictive, vituperative tone to it.
Here's an excellent link to a Congressional Reporting Service report "Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2001". It states "In eleven separate cases (listed in bold-face type) the United States formally declared war against foreign nations." WWII & WWI accounted for 3 and 2 of those cases respectively. The instances of the contrary are too many for me to count. Congressional Research Service
But then those founding fathers and other leaders in American history did not have Ron Paul to tell them what the Constitution meant!
Good grief, these things get into the courts, the only "problem" is that the courts, including the Supremes, don't always rule consistantly. If that's a problem for Congress, they pass a bill, and it's done with. Which is what the Dems have been trying to do for a couple years.
It's not a matter of does Hillary get a power "we", whoever that is, gave GWB, rather does a President get a power that's been here for a couple hundred years. She does, all of them, which is a good reason not to elect her. Not a reason to strip Presidential powers.
Then you support the impeachment of President Bush? Are will you argue that selective law enforcement by the Executive is Constitutional?
Bush has already declared that Muslim beliefs are the religion of peace. He chooses to remain ignorant that they want to slaughter the cattle, the infidels, the Christians and Jews.
Because a religious test would likely be unconstitutional.
Ron Paul has never said a thing about restricting Muslim immigration, he has said that there is no religious component to terrorism, so your concerns are misplaced. Once we've left the Middle East, Europe, Japan, Korea et al everything will be fine.
We know 100% of Saudi’s are Muslim. Why do we allow them to immigrate?
We know 98%+ of Pakistani’s are Muslim...same for several other countries. Should we continue to allow them to come here to establish Shariah?
Terrorism is a tactic, Jihad is the ideology.
I have heard Paul speak against the Jihadists.
Bush, otoh, has declared Islam a Religion of Peace.
Occupying Muslim countries is not sustainable in the long run.
US foreign policy since the end of the Cold War has been an unmitigated disaster.
A question, if I could...US troops are in over 130 countries. Should we reduce this number, increase this number, or leave it the same?
Anytime the discussion gets around to Ron Paul a lot of intelligent people, who just a moment before were calm and reasoned, start frothing at the mouth and their brain powers waiver. A denial behavior quickly appears and reasoning goes out the window. Too much emotion, I guess. I don’t know.
I think the second paragraph addresses your question:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=234
January 7, 2002
SANE AND SENSIBLE IMMIGRATION POLICIES AFTER SEPTEMBER 11
The terrible events of September 11th brought the issue of immigration reform squarely into the public spotlight. Most of the terrorist hijackers involved in the attacks were in the country illegally, having gained entrance using student visas that had later expired. The INS now admits that potentially tens of millions of aliens in the country are unaccounted for, many having simply disappeared after passing through customs. This in turn leads to fears that numerous terrorist cells may be operating within the U.S. and plotting future acts of terror. No amount of military might used abroad does us much good if the American people are not safe in their own communities.
Immigration policy must now be considered a matter of national security. America has the same sovereign right to defend itself against enemies when the enemy attacks us from within. Common sense tells us that we currently should not be admitting aliens from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists, or from nations with whom we are at war. There were many fine German-Americans in the U.S. during World War II, but we certainly did not allow open immigration from Germany until hostilities had ceased and loyalties could be determined. While we generally should welcome people from around the world whenever possible, we cannot allow potential enemies or terrorists to enter the country now under any circumstances. Legislation I introduced in the fall would restrict immigration, including the granting of heavily abused student visas, by individuals from nations listed as terrorist threats by the State department.
We also must do a better job keeping track of the noncitizens who already have been admitted to America. Individuals who remain in the country after their visas have expired must be treated as lawbreakers. Remember, only U.S. citizens have the constitutional right to be on American soil; non-citizens are in the country at the discretion of the State department. We should not tolerate lawless behavior or anti-American activities from guests in our country.
It is far better to focus our efforts on immigration reform and ridding our country of suspected terrorists than to restrict the constitutional liberties of our own citizens. The fight against terrorism should be fought largely at our borders. Once potential terrorists are in the country, the task of finding and arresting them becomes much harder, and the calls for intrusive government monitoring of all of us become louder. If we do not want to move in the direction of a police state at home, we must prevent terrorists from entering the country in the first place.
Finally, meaningful immigration reform can only take place when we end the welfare state. No one has a right to immigrate to America and receive benefits paid for by taxpayers. When we eliminate welfare incentives, we insure that only those who truly seek America’s freedoms and opportunities will want to come here.
They should rename it the Moonbat Act
We can restrict immigration by country, which we should, but it will be a difficult fight, just not by religion. The countries you mention, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, like most of the middle east export terrorists, but are not terror states themselves, so I wouldn’t be optomistic about Congress passing legislating a reduction in immigration from SA or Pakistan. The best defence would be extensive background checks, done by American security, not on site locals, but that’s probably not happening either. Comprehensive immigration reform, of legal immigration, would be the solution, and that’s not on the horizon.
Stop immigration from North Korea, Iran, Cuba, the Sudan and Syria.
Yup that'll solve the problem, we'll all be safer.
Saudis, Egyptians, they're not a threat, that 9/11 thing was a bunch of Saudi and Egyptian thugs, not terrorists.
The way to thwart terrorist attacks like that is through intelligence efforts, the types of things this bill opposed.
Why doesn’t he just say “to hell with it” and switch parties?
Looks like a Democrat bill to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.