Posted on 03/14/2003 3:26:39 PM PST by B4Ranch
It would be a sure bet that the Ashcroft led U.S. Department of Justice would like to see both ends of the political spectrum come together in support of their "anti-terrorism" programs, but it would appear just the opposite is happening. Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Bill of Rights Defense Council, are expressing concerns about the effect that the USA Patriot Act and a possible follow-up law, the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, could have on civil liberties.
ABC news reports more than 60 towns, cities and counties around the country have passed resolutions criticizing the act, some going so far as to instruct municipal employees — including police — not to assist federal agents in investigations that they believe violate the Constitution.
Joining groups like the ACLU, right-leaning groups such as the American Conservative Union, the Eagle Forum and Gun Owners of America say they are concerned that American citizens could also be victimized by what they say are unconstitutional law enforcement powers allowed by the "Patriot" and this potential enhancement act.
The heart of the issue, according to conservatives, liberals and constitutional scholars, is the effect that USA Patriot has already had on issues of probable cause and due process, and that both of those concepts would be further eroded if the so-called Patriot II were adopted as it appears in the draft form. ABC also reported that according to what is in the draft, if adopted it would allow the Justice Department to wiretap a person for 15 days without a warrant; federal agents could secretly arrest people and provide no information to their family, the media or their attorney until charges are brought, no matter how long that took; and it would allow the government to strip Americans of their citizenship for even unknowingly helping a group that is connected to an organization deemed to be terrorist.
It would also make it a crime for people subpoenaed in connection with an investigation being carried out under the Patriot Act to alert Congress to any possible abuses committed by federal agents.
There is also no "sunset provision," which constitutional scholars say removes the element of congressional oversight and means lawmakers would have no way of compelling the Justice Department to prove that the powers provided in the act have not been abused.
"There's no question the government has to have the tools to protect us from terror attacks and to prosecute those who want to harm us," ACU Executive Director Stephen Thayer said, "But having said that, the American Conservative Union wants to be sure that Congress takes into account the civil liberties of the citizens and through their deliberations reaches the proper balance between law enforcement and protecting citizens' rights," he added.
Christopher Pyle, a former U.S. Army intelligence officer who served on the Church Committee, a Senate select committee that studied government intelligence gathering, put it a bit more forcefully.
"I don't think the Fourth Amendment exists anymore," said Pyle, a professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College, referring to the amendment that prohibits unreasonable search and seizure and requires probable cause for a search or arrest. "I think it's been buried by the Patriot Act and some of the court rulings that have been handed down. We need a requiem mass for the Fourth Amendment, because it's gone."
Among the concerns Thayer said he has about the draft version of Patriot II are the broad expansion of surveillance and information-gathering powers, the granting of immunity to businesses and their personnel who provide information to anti-terrorism investigators even if the information is fraudulent, and the power to strip native-born Americans of their citizenship. Michael Hammond, a consultant with Gun Owners of America, which has more than 200,000 members, echoed those concerns, and said that the vague definition given to the term "terrorist" is extremely troubling.
"We have some serious concerns and part of our concerns spring from the fact that some of our members are part of the so-called militia movement," Hammond said. "We're looking into whether some of these groups or even the NRA [National Rifle Association] could be designated terrorists by this or a future administration."
It would certainly appear those of us who support the U.S. Constitution are in for a real storm. Those of you who are Bush supporters and believe these unconstitutional actions by the government are justified to fight terrorism, just imagine -if you will - these same powers in the hands of Hillary Clinton.
Copyright 2003 The Sierra Times
As to how this applies to what is the meaning of a "reasonable" search, or of any other language in the constitution, that meaning was not intended to be decided by the political branches. It is up to the policeman to know what the Constitution allows him to do and prohibits him from doing. Again, the law applies to him, so in the same limited sense as with the rest of us, he needs to "interpret" it enough to make sure he's obeying it. But neither his, nor Congress' interpretation is authoritative, as they do not have the judicial power, which by definition, is the power of authoritative interpretation.
Optional, (but more interesting) May the congress inpeach and remove judges whose interpretations of the Constitution are extremely different from the congress's?
He we need to split some hairs over the words "may" and "can". They can impeach and remove any federal officer for just about any reason they feel like, but they may not, constitutionally. As for the specific case with regard to judges' interpretation of the Constitution, I'd say at the very least they should have to prove that the offending judge knowingly intended to subvert the meaning of the Constitution. Otherwise they'd be impeaching him simply because they disagreed with how he did his job. This would defeat the whole purpose of having an independent judiciary. Think of it this way: If you're a judge, and you're presented with an act of Congress that you can see is unconstitutional, you know you're never going to be impeached for upholding it, even though you're violating your oath to the Constitution by doing so; but you do run the risk, however small, of impeachment if you were to strike it down. It's not hard to see which direction things would inexorably move in.
(Back after Children of Dune- unless it's no good)
I'd be most curious to know what you think of it (I may watch it someday when I have time)
Oh yeah -- I agree with you 100%. There is always a method to the ACLU's madness, while as you say, the devil does indeed "mix his lies with the truth."
My general instinct for what should and should not be considered constitutional is this simple litmus test: Is it illegal for ordinary citizens to do it to each other? Then it's illegal for federal agents to do it to citizens without getting a warrant under the requirements of the 4th amendment. I really don't see why this shouldn't be the case.
No.
You have gone on this wild tangent without paying any attention.
Never have I said congress's interpretation was superior to the courts'
I'll stop here and wait while you go search for such a statement by me.
It is the only thing you have said. Over and over...
I acknowledged that they must do their best at interpreting, in order to make sure their laws conform to the Constitution. But any interpretation that they announce in their legislation, regarding the meaning of the Constitution, goes beyond the powers vested in them by that instrument.
They have no more power to tell federal agents what the Constitution says than you or I do.
The quote is from a letter of Madison's in 1834 after most Constitutional questions had been settled- and he'd been there to see it all.
Today the Branches of our government still hold the same respect for each other's interpretations. Any Supreme Court opinion on the constitutionality of another Branch's act will include remarks that reflect these words of his.
I think we're done here.
I am in 100% agreement with you. When the spooks are tossing flashbangs through the window it's a little too late to write the editor of your local paper. As Barney Fife would say, "NIP IT!"
Other than by writing law how do you think the Legislature could tell the police "what the Constitution says"?
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.