Thanks to Glenn Greenwald for alerting this non-Paulite to an embarrassingly well written, and profoundly sane statement put out by the Texas Republican on the FISA abortion bill.
The operative quote that Barack might want to read himself is, "Mr. Speaker, we should understand that decimating the protections that our Constitution provides us against the government is far more dangerous to the future of this country than whatever external threats may exist. We can protect this country without violating the Constitution and I urge my colleagues to reconsider their support for this measure."
I would urge Barack to "reconsider" his support for this measure. To have Ron Paul out ahead of the Democratic Presidential nominee on such a bedrock issue of Constitutional democracy is just... wrong. (Paul even provides another coherent legal argument against the bill, if you can stand it, below.)
Not being any sort of Paul fan, one has to give credit, where credit is due. Especially in light of the cowardice passing as "leadership" on the Dem side right now.
Maybe Barack and the Democratic leadership are correct, that the American public is "clamoring" for elected leaders to hook up their phone companies with some extra cash, and WON'T vote for ANY candidate for President of the United States (or Congress) who won't take care of their Telecoms before summer vacation! Maybe I'm just living in an alternative universe, isolated from my fellow Americans (conservative or otherwise) and there really are millions out there demanding that, "Telecom Immunity must happen NOW, so we can enjoy our trip to the lake, god dammit!" I must not be able to see the great silent majority making it a top priority. Up there with Iraq, oil prices, and the Economy.
Of course Paul has been soundly rejected by his party, so maybe that proves the Democratic leadership's point. We need to be more like Republicans.
But Paul actually brings up another great talking point that I hadn't heard before. The "violation of Article 1, Section 9, of the US Constitution," which bans "ex post facto" laws from being passed.
From Paul's statement, "In addition to gutting the fourth amendment, this measure will deprive Americans who have had their rights violated by telecommunication companies involved in the Administration’s illegal wiretapping program the right to seek redress in the courts for the wrongs committed against them. Worse, this measure provides for retroactive immunity, whereby individuals or organizations that broke the law as it existed are granted immunity for prior illegal actions once the law has been changed. Ex post facto laws have long been considered anathema in free societies under rule of law. Our Founding Fathers recognized this, including in Article I section 9 of the Constitution that 'No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.' How is this FISA bill not a variation of ex post facto? That alone should give pause to supporters of this measure."
In other words, the Founders had the obvious wisdom of trying to prohibit future tyrants from trying to make "legal," their violations of our Constitution. They wanted to make crystal clear that you can't simply pass "laws" that override the Constitution, no matter how popular a politician (or tyrant) or issue might be. In a country living "under a Constitution," there simply is no alternative to that country's following the Constitution. Under that ethos, you can't commit crimes against the Constitution, and THEN go back and simply make crimes "Constitutional."
In this case, the US government can NOT pass "laws" which make "legal" the ending of the Fourth Amendment. Or even the violation of it. Even if they really, really want to. (They do.) Otherwise, our Constitution (and the country we know as the United States of America) ceases to have meaning. Which is similar to ceasing to exist.
Yes, it is that dramatic.
Barack may win, we will still call this the "United States," and life will go on. We may feel a thousand times better off than we were under the Bush regime. Such is the insidiousness of what is being allowed to go unpunished, and uncorrected, in our country. But, on the day this Constitutional "compromise" passes, our nation will be worse off, less free, and less "American," than it is today. President Obama, or no President Obama.