In March of this year, Sen. Jim Webb introduced The National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009. The reason for this legislation, as stated by Sen. Webb, is quite clear:
America's criminal justice system has deteriorated to the point that it is a national disgrace. Its irregularities and inequities cut against the notion that we are a society founded on fundamental fairness. Our failure to address this problem has caused the nation's prisons to burst their seams with massive overcrowding, even as our neighborhoods have become more dangerous. We are wasting billions of dollars and diminishing millions of lives.
We need to fix the system. Doing so will require a major nationwide recalculation of who goes to prison and for how long and of how we address the long-term consequences of incarceration.
This Thursday, an amendment to Webb's bill submitted by Sen. Chuck Grassley may be debated. His amendment reads:
SEC. ll. RESTRICTIONS ON AUTHORITY.
The Commission shall have no authority to make findings related to current Federal, State, and local criminal justice policies and practices or reform recommendations that involve, support, or otherwise discuss the decriminalization of any offense under the Controlled Substances Act or the legalization of any controlled substance listed under the Controlled Substances Act.
Jack Cole, the retired narcotics officer who now leads the organization Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, said of the proposed amendment, "Senator Grassley’s censorship amendment would block what Senator Webb is trying to achieve with this bill. All along, Senator Webb has said that in the effort to fix our broken criminal justice system ‘nothing should be off the table.’ That should include the obvious solution of ending the ‘drug war’ as a way to solve the unintended problems caused by that failed policy."
Today, Sen. Grassley was asked about his proposed censorship amendment, and ended up being highly revealing about the problems of his attitude towards governance, and the structural problems of legislative action:
Well, my intent on that amendment isn't any different than any other amendments that are coming up. The Congress is setting up a commission to study certain things. And the commission is a -- is an arm of Congress, because Congress doesn't have time to review some of these laws.
And -- and -- and the point is, for them to do what we tell them to do. And one of the things that I was anticipating telling them not to do is to -- to recommend or study the legalization of drugs.
Their -- their program would be what we tell it it is. And one of the reasons that maybe there's -- there are several amendments that I floated around. And I probably only anticipated offering two or three of them anyway. You always circulate more amendments than you want to offer because you want everything on the table because once the agenda goes out, then it's too late to put something on the table without unanimous consent.
Their program would be what they are told it would be. And so the "study" of certain things won't be a study at all, but a cherry-picked answer to the question determined by those with the potential for political gain.
Help LEAP defeat Grassley's amendment, and remember what studying the issue means to Republican legislators in the future.
Ben Masel had an excellent diary yesterday which gave more detailed information about the Senators who need to be contacted.
* Patrick Leahy, Vermont, Chairman
* Herb Kohl, Wisconsin
* Dianne Feinstein, California
* Russ Feingold, Wisconsin
* Chuck Schumer, New York
* Dick Durbin, Illinois
* Ben Cardin, Maryland
* Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island
* Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota
* Ted Kaufman, Delaware
* Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania
* Al Franken, Minnesota
* Jeff Sessions, Alabama, Ranking Member
* Orrin Hatch, Utah
* Chuck Grassley, Iowa
* Jon Kyl, Arizona
* Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
* John Cornyn, Texas
* Tom Coburn, Oklahoma