The Fourth Amendment is fundamental to our liberty not just because it protects privacy rights, but because it’s the basis for exercising other rights.
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) described some of the concerns that drew caucus members together: It’s important that we have this kind of group in Congress to stop before they become law, and before they have a chance to violate the rights of Americans.įrom across the partisan aisle, Rep. Joined by 25 Members of the House from each of the major parties, the caucus is poised to champion privacy and help establish in Congress the consensus that already unites Americans across our various political perspectives.ĭuring the July 13 briefing announcing the new Fourth Amendment Caucus, founding member Justin Amash (R-MI) explained its ambitions: In this context, the emergence of the bipartisan Fourth Amendment Caucus portends a potential sea change in Congress. Yet they have been repeatedly undermined by ultimately authoritarian powers that congressional leaders from both of the major political parties have unfortunately supported. Other times, including 2014, and again earlier this year, the bipartisan establishment joined ranks to quell populists from both parties who sought to more actively check and balance executive power.Ĭonstitutional rights are neither conservative nor liberal. In many cases-such as when controversial provisions of the Patriot Act were set to expire in 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011, and particularly in 2015-committee chairs waited until shortly before the re-authorization deadline, marginalized crucial public oversight, and then stoked fears about the security consequences of letting unconstitutional powers lapse.
Instead, congressional leaders of both major political parties have played games of legislative brinksmanship.
Not only has it failed to pursue a long-overdue investigation, it has also tolerated and declined to reform a classification system so bloated and secretive that it obstructs Congress’ own ability to conduct oversight. Unfortunately, Congress must share the blame for executive secrecy. This is no merely hypothetical fear: intelligence agencies have been caught stating false facts under oath in response to congressional inquiries, and have even launched cyber-espionage operations to suppress a congressional investigation into their own abuses. Time after time, when domestic surveillance powers come up for re-authorization, Congress has declined to conduct public hearings, allowing executive officials to spin the facts without an opportunity for independent voices-like the whistleblowers who have repeatedly revealed fraud, waste, and abuse-to correct the record. In addition to overlooking its responsibility to examine and investigate crucial matters of fact, Congress has also settled for holding secret hearings dominated by intelligence officials.
Yet even the intelligence committees have failed to gain answers to questions as basic as how many Americans are being monitored, or whether mass surveillance has ever actually helped stop a violent incident.
#PROTECT FROM ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC FREE#
As a predictable result, proposals that undermine our fundamental right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures have been repeatedly enacted into law.įor instance, Congress has approved and re-authorized controversial domestic spying powers more than half a dozen times over the past 15 years. Unfortunately, Congress must share the blame for executive secrecy.ĭeference to the executive branch-emboldened by Congress’ continuing failure to reform a “dysfunctional” classification system that enables executive secrecy-has left Congress in the dark on matters of fact that should inform its legislative decisions. intelligence agencies, enabled by Congress’ faith in the agencies’ willingness to respect legal limits on their powers. In last week’s launch of a new bipartisan Fourth Amendment Caucus in the House, however, the Constitution has gained a formidable ally.Įvery Member of Congress swears an oath to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Yet the most significant threats to our Constitution include the powers of U.S. By neglecting to examine basic facts, and deferring to executive agencies whose secrets preclude meaningful debate, the body has allowed proposals that undermine constitutional rights to repeatedly become enshrined in law. On matters implicating privacy, such as mass surveillance or the powers of investigatory agencies, Congress has too often failed to fulfill its responsibilities.
0 kommentar(er)
