On Monday night, the House GOP splintered. Twenty-six Republicans, including eight freshmen, joined with Democrats to oppose a one-year extension of some of the surveillance authorities granted by the USA Patriot Act, a counterterrorism law that was passed in the wake of 9/11.
“Believe me, House leadership was caught off guard,” says one Republican committee aide. “They really thought that they had everybody contained. They knew there would be a few defections, but they did not expect this group to try and out–Tea Party one another. The Ron Paul influence, especially on civil liberties, is stronger than you think.”
Monday’s vote was proffered under a suspension of the rules, which requires a two-thirds majority. Other House GOP aides tell NRO that the extension will likely brought up again via “regular orders” in the coming weeks; this requires a simple majority, and they expect it to pass.
The White House, one aide points out, will now be forced to work with Congress, especially with three provisions set to expire on February 28. The House GOP would like to extend the provisions until December 8; Senate Democrats and the White House would prefer extending the provisions through 2013, in order to take it off of the table for the election.
With the clock ticking, Republicans believe they can set the stakes, regardless of how they stumbled on the initial vote. On Monday, an aide close to the process notes, many Democrats who are supportive of a one-year extension voted against it, in order to stand with those who would like to see the provisions extended through 2013. So while Republicans will be whipping hard, to be sure, Democrats, too, he predicts, will be having their own internal debate about a short-term extension.
Both parties, another adds, are confident that they can cobble together enough votes for an extension through December 8, making the argument to members that the Intelligence and Judiciary committees need more time to mull the provisions. Democrats would give up their hope for a 2013 extension and GOP hawks would give up their hopes for a permanent extension.
I find any vote that lessens Government power a heartening one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's shameful that so many members of the Tea Party Caucus abandoned their principles in the name of "fighting terror" - a cause for which no limit to the size or scope of the fed's power is apparently needed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not sure this is at all concerning or that it constitutes a "splintering" (that seems overdramatic Mr. Costa). There is still a libertarian streak in many Republicans. The PATRIOT Act was not really an issue in the last campaign - I didn't really hear any candidates talking about it or see any reporting on their positions. It doesn't surprise me that you have a notable chunk of members who are skeptical of some of the more contentious provisions of the Act.
I'm not sure why the GOP set themselves up for this embarrassment - it was unlikely that they'd get enough Democrats to pass the thing under suspension (requiring 2/3 vote - which means they needed 48 Democratic votes). So why leave yourself open to this kind of thing?
Really this just reflects poorly on the Whip (McCarthy) and his team, and the leadership more generally. They've got to be doing a better job of counting noses. Losing some Republicans on a vote isn't a big deal - but it sounds like they were caught by surprise on this one - and that concerns me when we get to really big votes where the margins will be closer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBig Sis has proven herself pretty irresponsible with the power she has, the last thing she needs is more.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The Ron Paul influence, especially on civil liberties, is stronger than you think.”
Great. I am beginning to really like these new Republicans.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAny of the provisions should be subject to tests.
Constitutional Test: would a reasonable person engage in legal activity that might run afoul of the net cast by the act? If so, that pushes toward invalidating those portions of the act based on 4th amendment arguments.
Effectiveness Test: How many convictions have the provisions of the act actually landed? If a provision does not produce convictions/case breaks, sunset it.
Unintended Consequences Test: How are prosecutors and investigators actually using the law as opposed to how it was intended to be used? Best example is RICO, of course. If it is being used for ends that are outside its intended scope, throw it out until you can limit the scope back to what was intended.
Needs Test: Based on any of the above, can the legislature demonstrate a need for the legislation that is not handled by any other legislation? If this covers a situation that is already covered by existing legislation, then at least repeal the existing in the process of passing the new.
The U.S. Code needs to go on a weight reduction program. Conservatives need to discipline legislation we favor as an exercise in disciplining other folks'.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGosh, I may vote Republican again if they keep this up!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGregDN-
DON"T VOTE REPUBLICAN VOTE TEA PARTY CONSERVATIVE!
BTW, did Bohner break down and cry after this vote failed?
Thank you to those 26 Freshmen who served notice that the Freshmen class (and other Tea Partiers) do not agree with Republican Business as usual garbage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo question that we need better vigilance over possible domestic terrorism. But the provisions of the (loosely so-called) Patriot Act at issue were not central to that. The central requirement is that the government be willing and able to identify and target the actual and potential sources of domestic terrorism, namely the militant Islamists. Unless and until the government is willing and able to do that any legal avenue for dealing with terrorism will be a joke at best.
And in the meantime, absolutely HOORAY for the Republicans finally willing to repudiate untrammeled government intrusion into the lives of ordinary citizens.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMST is absolutely spot on and I was THRILLED with their vote. The Republican Party should embrace these brave freshman. I also am thrilled with the shake up DC is getting. Keep on shakin'!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKeep an eye on the big picture. There is already a (quiet) bipartisan desire to revisit the Patriot Act by the adults in the Senate. Opening up this can of worms too late in the election cycle could be detrimental to Republicans that support the status quo. Better to pare it back to a more manageable and constitutionally less vague act giving law enforcement a good base set of tools. Follow this with a second act (Patriot Act II) with the legally questionable rules AND a sunset provision to keep the Teas happy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf anyone thinks the Patriot Act is about fighting terrorism need to have their heads checked. Homeland Security and Big Sis is all about invading your privacy with pat downs, cancer causing scanners at airports, etc. It's about enslaving you to a powerful and bigger government all in the name of claiming to make you safe. Don't fall for it.
Hooray for Ron Paul and the few Republicans fighting for civil liberties and freedom. Exactly why we need a strong third party. Dems and Reps are one in the same - for big government just different versions of it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCome on folks, why argue the merits of the unconstitutional act even if parts of the bill are ok. How many times have laws been enacted hastily or with good intentions and then they are perverted when put in the wrong hands.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"What is morally wrong can never be advantageous, even when it enables you to make some gain that you believe to be to your advantage. The mere act of believing that some wrongful course of action constitutes an advantage is pernicious." Cicero
Blaming that vote on the freshmen GOP class is dubious math, since only 8 of the 26 "defectors" were freshmen-- about the same proportion as their numbers. It was a failure of the leadership, not the newcomers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSame old stuff,different day.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAdam,
Cicero also, famously, executed Roman citizens including at least one fellow senator without the normal public trial by jury [not even an all-senator jury] and following only a senate debate and vote under the terms of a previous senatorial decree giving the senate extra-constitutional emergency powers.
For this he 4 years later had to accept a term of exile foisted on him by political enemies, though he was eventually semi-vindicated.
Now, he considered his action morally right, so his quote is not hypocritical, but his enemies certainly believed he acted unjustly for his own gain.
As it happens, the executed men were all traitors of the reckless adventurer sort and the republic was indeed at a moment of existential peril.
None of which is immediately relevant to the circumstances of the Patriot Act, or indeed to the current international agitation to keep GWB from travelling abroad. But its an interesting general lesson.
I myself need to get more familiar with the Patriot Act's precise content. I realize I am out of date, but as I recall even the original act's most widely criticized provisions often were designed only to extend existing criminal search provisions into the counterterrorist sphere and/or were about matters of public record that sat behind arbitrary intragovernmental walls [like the library borrowing records].
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCount me in with the Tea Party folks. As a middle class conservative I am tired of being represented by blue bloods or politicians from either party that pander to the same.
It used to be said what is good for GM is good for America. How about changing that around a bit and saying what it good for the Middle and Working Classes is great for America?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse