Left Turn: Is the GOP conservative?

National Review ^ | July 23, 2003 issue | National Review Editorial Board

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

he news this summer has been rather bleak for conservatives. The Supreme Court first decided to write "diversity" into the Constitution. A few days later, it issued a ruling on sodomy laws that called into question its willingness to tolerate any state laws based on traditional understandings of sexual morality. In neither case was there much pretense that the Court was merely following the law. At this point it takes real blindness to deny that the Court rules us and, on emotionally charged policy issues, rules us in accord with liberal sensibilities. And while the Court issued its edicts and the rest of the world adjusted, a huge prescription-drug bill made its way through Congress. That bill will add at least $400 billion to federal spending over the next ten years, and it comes on top of already gargantuan spending increases over the last five years. The fact that a pro-growth tax cut is going into effect this summer hardly compensates for these developments — especially since expanding entitlements threaten to exert upward pressure on tax rates in the future.

Republicans have been complicit in each of these debacles. Both the affirmative-action and sodomy decisions were written by Reagan appointees. President Bush actually cheered the affirmative-action decision for recognizing the value of "diversity." Bush has requested spending increases, and not just for defense and homeland security. He has failed to veto spending increases that went beyond his requests. But let it not be said that the president has led his party astray. Many congressional Republicans have strayed even more enthusiastically. Bush originally wanted to condition prescription-drug benefits on seniors' joining reformed, less expensive health plans. When the idea was raised, House Speaker Denny Hastert called it "inhumane." Congressional appropriators — the people who write the spending bills — have been known to boast that they would beat the president if ever he dared to veto one of their products.

We have never been under any illusions about the extent of Bush's conservatism. He did not run in 2000 as a small-government conservative, or as someone who relished ideological combat on such issues as racial preferences and immigration. We supported him nonetheless in the hope that he would strengthen our defense posture, appoint originalist judges, liberalize trade, reduce tax rates, reform entitlements, take modest steps toward school choice. Progress on these fronts would be worth backsliding elsewhere. We have been largely impressed with Bush's record on national security, on judicial appointments (although the big test of a Supreme Court vacancy will apparently not occur during this term), and on taxes. On the other issues he has so far been unable to deliver.

It is not Bush's fault that Democrats oppose entitlement reform, or that the public wants it less than it wants a new entitlement to prescription drugs. He should, however, have used the veto more effectively to restrain spending. Had he vetoed the farm bill, for example, Congress would have sent him a better one. We need presidential leadership on issues other than war and taxes. Instead we are getting the first full presidential term to go without a veto since John Quincy Adams. Bush's advisers may worry that for Bush to veto the bills of a Republican Congress would muddle party distinctions for voters. But this dilemma results from a failure of imagination. Why must the House Republican leadership always maintain control of the floor? When Democrats and liberal Republicans have the votes to pass a bill, sometimes it would be better to let them do so, and then have the president veto it. The alternative — cobbling together some lite version of a liberal bill in order to eke out a congressional majority — is what really makes it hard to press the case against big-spending Democrats.

The defeats on racial preferences, gay rights, and the role of the courts generally reflect a conservative political failure that predates this administration. Republican politicians have never been comfortable talking about moral or race-related issues, and have been eager to slough off these responsibilities to the courts. Their silence is not, however, only an abdication of responsibility; it is also politically foolish. Opposition to racial preferences and gay marriage is popular in every state of the Union. And if the courts are going to block social conservatives from ever achieving legislative victories — and Republicans will not even try to do anything about it — social conservatives may well conclude that there is no point to participating in normal politics. There goes the Republican majority.

To get back on track will require effort from President Bush, congressional Republicans, and conservatives generally. Bush ought to bear down on spending; we suggest that an assault on corporate welfare, followed by a reform of the appropriations process, would be a fine start. Republicans need a strategy for dealing with the judicial usurpation of politics that goes beyond trying to make good appointments to the bench — a strategy that now has a two-generation track record of nearly unrelieved failure. On gay marriage, a constitutional amendment appears to be necessary to forestall the mischief of state and federal courts. But a mere statute can make the point that Congress controls the federal judiciary's purview. Congressman Todd Akin's bill to strip the federal judiciary of jurisdiction over the Pledge of Allegiance has the votes to pass the House, and has a powerful Senate sponsor in Judiciary Committee chairman Orrin Hatch. It should be high on the Republican agenda.

Conservatives, finally, have to find ways to work with the Republicans — their fortunes are linked — while also working on them. The Pennsylvania Senate primary offers a choice between a candidate who is conservative on both economics and social issues, Pat Toomey, and one who is conservative on neither, the incumbent, Arlen Specter. The White House and the party establishment has rallied behind Specter. But President Bush's goals would be better served by a Senator Toomey. And as recent events underscore, this is not a bad time for conservatives to declare their independence from the GOP establishment.

[janetgreen]

Conservative here and won't be voting a straight Republican ticket any longer. Won't be voting for Bush again.

Ditto. Guess I just don't like Bush's brand of "compassionate conservatism".

[Southack]

SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.


Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--

`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);

`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and

`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.

SEC. 214. PEN REGISTER AND TRAP AND TRACE AUTHORITY UNDER FISA.

[Southack]

"I'll help you. "Sneak-a-peek" is in Section 213. Go read your copy of the "Patriot" Act and get back to me." - ApesForEvolution

Really? The phrase "sneak-a-peek" is in Section 213?!

[ApesForEvolution]

Section 213, "Authority to Conduct Secret Searches" aka 'Sneak and Peek'.

This power, USED and ABUSeD AT THE SOLE DISCRETION OF JUDGES (and recent history for America's Federal Judgeship doesn't fair well, does it?), effectively 'expands' the 4th Amendment.

But in reality, allows judges and LEOs to act outside of our Constitutional rights - the 4th is effectively gutted by it - and it doesn't apply simply to 'terrorism'.

Maybe Republicans and FoCs (friends of the Constitution) won't abuse it - but do you trust that Hillary and the RATS won't?

[ApesForEvolution]

You're a joke on this matter. Good night.

[CWOJackson]

"You're a joke on this matter."

But no matter how hard they try they could never compete with this standup routine of yours.

[Southack]

Running away so soon?

Who would have guessed...

I posted Section 213 above, in full. Any person who understands our Constitution and who has read Section 213 knows full well that it is legal and Constitutional.

The Court still has to grant the Warrant.

But you are welcome to come back some day and flail around on this issue, vainly trying more angles to see if any possible unConstitutional argument will work.

I doubt seriously that you ever find such an argument, however.

As to whether you'll come back to this thread under your current or another name, well, let's just leave that possibility open at better than 50%.

[ApesForEvolution]

I didn't see your substantive post before your assinine 'where's it say sneakapeak, uh duh' post.

Anyone that claims to have read it, but can't cite sources and hides behind the 'I can't find sneakapeek' ("because everytime I ran a search 'sneakapeek' didn't come up"), I question.

I don't have my marked up copy with me, but I found an online source HERE for anyone that wishes to follow along.

[tpaine]

Post the legal text in the Patriot Act with which **you** maintain is unConstitutional.
-Southack-


I'll grant that its written to conform [barely] to todays federal standards of 'constitutionality'. - Most of which have little basis in the actual words of our constitution, or its original principles.
Look below at the 'acts' it changes.. -- Most of them are blatant infringements on our liberties in themselves:

*Bank Secrecy Act
*Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
*Electronic Communications Privacy Act *Family Education Rights and Privacy Act
*Fair Credit Reporting Act
*Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act *Immigration and Nationality Act
*Money Laundering Act
*Money Laundering Control Act
*Right to Financial Privacy Act
*Pen Register and Trap and Trace Statute
*Wiretap Statute (Title III


Thus, imo, we have constitutional insult piled on injuries.

[ApesForEvolution]

Section 213 eliminates the prior requirement that law enforcement provide a person subject to a search warrant with contemporaneous notice of the search.

Do you not find that troubling?

[Southack]

"How long do you have? Should we first start with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as 'ground zero'? That way you could recognize what is Constitutional and what isn't. Any opinion yet (multiple requests to you noted now) on the 'sneak-a-peak' powers granted in the "Patriot" Act?"

How long do I have? A lifetime, not that it will take much of it to debunk your claims.

For one thing, there is no legal "sneak-a-peak" text written in the Patriot Act as passed into law.

Not that you'd know that fact, having not even read the actual law itself before some clever manipulator had you spouting off against the law, mindlessly doing someone else's dirty work (as in, propagating the Big Lie of telling something that is untrue so many times that many people gradually come to accept the lie as if it was a real fact).

[Southack]

"You said you've read it, so let's talk 'sneak-a-peek' powers in the "Patriot" Act. I'll be up for awhile."

427 posted on 07/11/2003 11:31 PM CDT by ApesForEvolution ("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)"

Sneak-a-peek and up for awhile?! Hmmm...

[Southack]

"Section 213 eliminates the prior requirement that law enforcement provide a person subject to a search warrant with contemporaneous notice of the search. Do you not find that troubling?"

Troubling, even if valid, isn't at issue.

The claim that I am disputing is from those who claim that the Patriot Act is **unConstitutional**.

I've read the act. It's legal. It's Constitutional. The claims that I've seen against it have not been persuasive.

In fact, most of the claims come from posters such as yourself who haven't even read the actual legal text.

"sneak-a-peak", indeed!

[Cultural Jihad]

OOPs! I really made a fraudian typo there, lol. Sorry.

You are no doubt a Fraudian at heart.

[Southack]

"I'll grant that its written to conform [barely] to todays federal standards of 'constitutionality'."

Indeed. I'll go further and say that it rises even above that bar (pun intended).

But I'll say that it could have been better written.

[ApesForEvolution]

We're up to 470 now.

After you get done with that, I'd like you to address the "Field Guidance on New Authorities Enacted in the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Legislation".

The "Patriot" Act effectively replaced the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Legislation, but the Field Guidance policy is still intact.

I have a redacted copy of the Field Guidance document in my puter in pdf format, I would have to email it to you if you don't have it.

Although the Bush administration's "Field Guidance on New Authorities Enacted in the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Legislation" states that the new authority "is primarily designed to authorize delayed notice of searches," the amendment permits seizure of any tangible property or communications where the court finds "reasonable necessity" for this seizure.

The law also requires that notice be given within a "reasonable period," which can be extended by the court for "good cause."

"Reasonable period" is undefined, and the administration's Field Guidance advises that this is a "flexible standard."

Does this still not trouble you?

[Southack]

Hey Alan, where have you been?!

[ApesForEvolution]

The smoke and mirrors used in the "Patriot" Act are the same ones employed in the IRC.

[FreeReign]

Section 213, "Authority to Conduct Secret Searches" aka 'Sneak and Peek'.

Section 213 of the Patriot acts amends Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code.

Have you read Section 3103a of title 18, U.S. code?

[ApesForEvolution]

Yes, it's been awhile, but I was immersed in it for quite some time.

I don't have my notes here at this location, but it's all coming back. It's nightmare legislation when the totality of its ramifications are considered.