Time to Start Acting Like Patriots, Not Patriot Acting

In case you missed it: this weekend saw the extension of the unconstitutional and misnamed "Patriot Act"--an affront to our liberties and a failure at keeping us safe. It was politics as usual with the re-authorization flying under the radar, disguised as a vote to approve Senate amendments to the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act.

Those familiar with the legislation know its history (composed of failed leftover power grabs from the Clinton administration, it was rushed through in the fearful aftermath of 9/11) and its contents (an unprecedented allowance of government intrusion and constitutional infringement, including the ability to bypass the constitutional requirement for warrants in a number of cases).

Benjamin Franklin once stated, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither." Sadly, in post 9/11 America, we seem to be getting exactly what we deserve. Our feeble attempt to subvert our liberties in the name of security has made us neither freer nor safer.

Now the Supreme Court is dealing with another aspect of the massive piece of legislation. With its broad ability to crack down on those offering support to "terrorist groups," the Patriot Act may actually be being used in the cracking down on humanitarian groups and those seeking peace--all the while in a violation of First Amendment guarantees.

Warren Richey reports:

The law makes it a crime to provide “material support” to a known terrorist organization. It is designed to isolate terrorists by making it more difficult for them to receive assistance, services, and recruits.

But critics say the government has adopted such a broad reading of “material support” that even peace activists working to persuade a terror group to pursue nonviolent methods of political change would themselves be liable for up to 15 years in prison for providing “support” to terrorists.

“[The law] imposes criminal liability on speech and association without any showing that the speaker intended to incite or promote terrorist activity in any way,” writes Georgetown Law Professor David Cole in his brief to the court on behalf those challenging the law.

In my humble opinion, the problem goes even further.With the government's already embarrassing and bloated terror watch list proving to be deeply flawed, there is little hope that much faith can be put in Uncle Sam to not abuse its new-found authority and suppress innocents here at home. We already know actual terrorists don't make the list, while innocent citizens do. So can we truly feel comfortable while the government is viewing its own innocent citizens as "domestic terrorists?" I think not.

The Patriot Act leaves too much room for abuse, too much room for persecution of innocents, and has done too little to achieve its goal of making us safer (plus it is unconstitutional!) . Just look at the piles of evidence for proof of the former and to the number of recent terrorist attacks on American soil as proof of the latter.

I applaud those who voted against the measure, and am deeply ashamed of those who refused to stand for the Constitution. If we want to be safe and free, we do not need the Patriot Act; we need to follow the Constitution.

What's sure is this: increased government power and decreased individual liberty is not the answer in keeping us safe. Rather, we should promote our national defense through constitutional means; that's the actions of a true patriot.

Enumerated Powers Act: A Step in the Right Direction

My attention was recently drawn to some good news. Though it's not the first time it has been proposed, I can't remember seeing such support for the Enumerated Powers Act in the past. Today, the senate version has 22 co-sponsors, while the house version boast 60 co-sponsers of its own. Sadly, it is only Republicans who have thrown their support behind the legislation thus far, but Democrats should remedy this lack of support quickly as S. 1319 and H.R. 450 are a huge step in the right direction.

If you are unfamiliar with the legislation, here is a basic rundown.

The Enumerated Powers Act would require each bill that goes before Congress "to contain a concise explanation of the specific constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act." If an explanation cannot be provided, a point of order is called in which the chamber must acknowledge that constitutional authority could not be found for the proposed legislation.

I see two major benefits of this bill. First, it will cause lawmakers to reevaluate what they think about constitutional authority. They must actually turn to the document in their law-making process and see if their actions are constitutional or not. (A novel, I know!) Second, if they refuse to submit to constitutional law-making, it is brought to the attention of everyone as a point of order is called. Image these words: "The senator would like to propose the follow legislation even though he lacks any constitutional authority to do so."

In essence, unconstitutional bills will be noted as such for the record, the public would be made aware of constitutional infidelity, and the sponsor would be exposed on the chamber floor.

The bill wouldn't stop the passage of unconstitutional bills, but it will expose unconstitutional bills in a way that is currently lacking. Hopefully, this exposure could lead to a lesser volume of unconstitutional proposals.

Of course, the likelihood of the Enumerated Powers Act passing is slim, especially lacking Democrat support. But who knows in the current climate? If one where to say just a little over a year ago that a bill to audit the Federal Reserve would experience massive bipartisan support and make it out of committee, one would be laughed at as a fool. But we now see what has happened with H.R. 1207.

What stands in the way? Our elected officials hate to the constraints of the Constitution, and as we have failed to hold them accountable, they know they can get away with their infidelity to the rule of law.

But, like I said, the times are changing. So lets see if we can get our elected officials to support the Enumerated Powers Act.