[Originally posted at Corrente.]
Here's a very interesting speech that Representative Hoyer gave yesterday over at Georgetown Law School. (I'm not clued into Village mores enough to know if the location is significant, but I'm guessing it is. Heck, it's the Beltway's own law school...). Here's the text of the speech, and some of what he had to say; I'm leaving out the terra-terra-terra ass-covering boilerplate to focus on what's new:
We also swear an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, and to honor the values and principles that are contained therein for example, the Fourth Amendment right that Americans be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Fifth Amendment right to due process of law.
Honoring the system of checks and balances carefully established by the Framers of our Constitution will make us more, not less, safe. This was the conclusion of those men in 1789 who had just fought a war, and who faced a very uncertain and dangerous future.
[Here follows a long list of abuses and usurpations; essentially, the same critique we've been developing on torture, surveillance, the rule of law, abuse of power, et cetera, et cetera.]
Nor have we helped our cause by dispensing with centuries-old legal concepts such as habeas corpus. And, the Administration s penchant for presidential signing statements that assert a right of the President to effectively ignore all or part of the laws he signs must give all of us pause.
It is long past time for effective Congressional oversight and Judicial review of this Administration's actions.
And now comes something I personally find amazing:
Hoyer quotes Federalist 47, the same passage we've been hammering on for years. (Mainstreaming is hard work! Our hair has been on fire about Federalist 47 since 2005 (here, here, here, and here).
As our fourth President James Madison, wrote in Federalist Paper Number 47 more than 200 years ago: 'The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.'
But let's be concrete. What about retroactive immunity for the telcos?
Simply stated, it would be grossly irresponsible for Congress to grant blanket immunity for companies without even knowing whether their conduct was legal or not. And, importantly, this view is shared by the Chairman and Ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Until we understand what legal authorities were used to justify the terrorist surveillance program, there does not appear to be any practicable way to include retroactive immunity in this bill.
Which Bush will permit when Hell freezes over since He operates under the extremely Constitutional Theory Of We Get To Do Whatever The Fuck We Want, and he doesn't need to show no steenkin' legal authorities to anybody other than some Federalist Society operative chained up in Cheney's dank basement.
Further:
Let me add that I also believe we made a tremendous mistake in eliminating the right of habeas corpus. Congress must revisit this issue.
The writ of habeas corpus has a hallowed history. Initially mentioned in the Magna Charta of 1215, it is enshrined in our Constitution and is not dependent on any act of Congress.
Nonetheless, the Congress eliminated habeas corpus in the Military Commissions Act in 2005, against the objections of civil libertarians and conservatives alike.
For example, constitutional scholar Bruce Fein, who served as Deputy Attorney General in the Reagan Administration has stated: 'Not a crumb of evidence has been adduced suggesting that the writ would risk freeing terrorists to return to fight against the United States.'
Excellent.
Now, at this point, I yield to very few in my cynicism about our Beltway Democrats. But I care about results a lot more than I care about motives or purity of heart. And when Hoyer goes on the record like this, in today's atmosphere, I think that's a big deal--whether he's taking this stand based on idealism, attacking Leader Nance from the left, performing some Byzantine maneuver, or because--surprise!--demanding the restoration of Constitutional government turns out to the good politics. Who cares, as long as the words are on the record?
So, maybe, just maybe, there's hope on preventing the complete collapse on the rule of law, and beating back retroactive immunity for the telcos. Hoyer seems to be saying immunity won't be in the House bill. And with Senator Dodd (D-With Stones) pulling, and the blogosphere pushing Senator Biden and then Senator Obama to do the right thing in the Senate, both Houses are covered.
Steny Hoyer gets the Constitution's back. But Hillary doesn't. Odd, that.
UPDATE I called Representative Hoyer to say that this speech was noted and appreciated: (202) 225-4131.