Third Party & Independents Archives

March 22, 2005

Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances

Bob Barr (R), was on C-span today supporting a bi-partisan organization called by this article’s title. Their goal is to move legislation over the next two years to revise the Patriot Act on certain key provisions in an attempt to restore civil liberties potentially lost under the act. Barr said the Whitehouse was the only primary the voice in enacting the Patriot Act, and it is time the American people’s voice was incorporated into the Patriot Act since the Act has consequences to the civil liberties of American citizens.

Bravo! Bob Barr. Bravo! Thank you for negating all those arguments by those in the Red column from months gone passed who defended the Patriot Act against criticisms from the left on this very issue. I highly recommend any and all who have expressed concern over the Patriot Act to click on the link above and give your support.

Now the question should be raised, are these Patriots for Checks and Balances suddenly motivated due to the realization of the potential dangers inherent in the Patriot Act, or, is this a case of some on the right joining with some on the left because election season begins again in less than the two years they intend to work on this? In the end, that is not the main question. The main question is whether Bush will veto changes proposed in his ardent attempt to not let civil liberties stand between him and his record of perfection?

Posted by David R. Remer at March 22, 2005 03:50 PM
Comments
Comment #48513
The main question is whether Bush will veto changes proposed in his ardent attempt to not let civil liberties stand between him and his record of perfection?

I’m a bit confused about what is expiring at the end of this year. Is it certain parts of the Patriot Act? All of it? Did I misunderstand? If it’s expiring, wouldn’t it be futile for Bush to veto the changes, since the whole thing would just go away without the changes?

Thanks for the post David - good stuff!

Posted by: Tad at March 22, 2005 05:38 PM
Comment #48515

Excellent, its a very good thing to see bi-partisan efforts to revise the Patriot Act. In my opinion, allowing terrorists to erode our fourth ammendment rights IS letting terrorism win.

You can fight terrorism ferociously without eroding civil liberties. Or is “freedom” not that important?

The Patriot Act is up for renewal at the end of this period. We are going to have a debate on whether these laws are to be permanent. The real question is what will happen 40 years from now if (pray not) we have a horribly corrupt administration that could disapear people for political purposes, disapear non-violent drug offenders, or anyone deemed adversarial. What happens then?

Posted by: Paul D at March 22, 2005 06:05 PM
Comment #48551

Tad, the most aggregious provisions in the Patriot Act were purposefully given and expiration date of the end of 2005. They will expire, or be renewed by Congress before the expiration date. The rest of the Patriot Act will continue without change.

This organization will lobby for careful changes that will remove the following infringements upon civil rights (quoted from their site)

Today, the Patriot Act allows government to secretly search your home and collect a broad array of personal data, such as: medical records, gun ownership, library and financial records – even if you’re not suspected of a crime.
Posted by: David R Remer at March 23, 2005 12:17 AM
Comment #48567

I think Bod Barr is worried he won’t be re-elected.

Posted by: Aldous at March 23, 2005 05:24 AM
Comment #48611

I’m with Aldous.
I think this is being done for re-election purposes. And I for one, can’t stomach the hypocritical Barr since he went after Clinton for perjury and adultery, when he himself was equally guilty of both.

And yet… I’m also going to join David in saying BRAVO!
Because I think its great that at last the spotlight is shining on the Unconstituional provisions of the Patriot Act! Although, I really don’t see why it should take TWO YEARS to restore rights that should never have been abridged in the first place.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 23, 2005 05:28 PM
Comment #48620

Thank you, Adrienne, I knew there was something I forgot in the original article. The reason they set two years as the time table is because that puts the actual record of what they actually do or don’t do, past the 2006 Congressional elections.

The reelected Congress persons are off the hook regardless whether they fix it or not.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 23, 2005 06:09 PM
Comment #48647

A little off-topic here, but I personally don’t understand the motivations of many of our Congressmen. The cycle of election, legislation, and campaigning seems pretty useless to me.

I at least understand the actions of presidents seeking a second term. They have to be moderate in the first term so that they can be re-elected and really push their ideas in their second term.

But for Congressmen, who have an unlimited number of terms, what is the motivation? If they are simply trying to impress the electorate in order to be re-elected to another term, and maybe never actually supporting their own beliefs, how can they feel truly happy with their efforts? As far as I can see, most Congressmen are simply trying to please lobbying groups so that they can get more money for their next re-election campaign. Is it just me, or is the legislative system really just corrupt, inefficient, and ineffectual?

Posted by: Ryan at March 23, 2005 10:29 PM
Comment #48649
“Is it just me, or is the legislative system really just corrupt, inefficient, and ineffectual?”

Welcome to the real world Ryan.

Posted by: Zeek at March 23, 2005 10:34 PM
Comment #48659

David:
“The reason they set two years as the time table is because that puts the actual record of what they actually do or don’t do, past the 2006 Congressional elections.”

Ah. Well then, that seems to answer your question completely.

“The reelected Congress persons are off the hook regardless whether they fix it or not.”

If it’s only a song and dance act for re-election, I say we give them all “the hook”! ;^)

Ryan:
“Is it just me, or is the legislative system really just corrupt, inefficient, and ineffectual?”

It’s not just you. And sadly yes, I believe that as it has before, the system is increasingly becoming all of those things. That’s why it is so important for everyone to keep calling and writing their Congressmen and women. They really need to hear from us in far greater numbers than they do the lobbyists and special interests.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 24, 2005 04:35 AM
Comment #48667

Bravo for Bob Barr. It’s about time conservatives started acting conservative. Thanks for the heads up on checksandbalances.org, David.

Ryan, the biggest problem with our political system is the way campaigns are financed.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 24, 2005 09:23 AM
Comment #48672

The Republicans are very loyal to their constituents. Look at how they take care of Halliburton, the Insurance Companies and HMOs. That kind of dedication is what makes the RNC great!!!

Posted by: Aldous at March 24, 2005 10:08 AM
Comment #48720

I am happy that someone is doing something.

Posted by: Blue at March 24, 2005 03:40 PM
Comment #48744

“I think Bod Barr is worried he won’t be re-elected.”

i hate to defend barr (i lived in his district for five years), but he’s not currently holding office, so he can’t be re-elected. and he’s actually been a pretty tireless advocate for fixing the patriot act since he’s left office…

Posted by: schtaple at March 24, 2005 07:13 PM