Irregular Times » Legislation

H.R. 3745, Putting All of a Credit Union’s Eggs in the Collection Basket

Jim Cook — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:56:00 +0000

There’s a saying that’s popular among credit unions: “not for profit, not for charity, but for service.” Most people know that credit unions are non-profit organizations that return all their proceeds to members, distinguishing them from banks, institutions whose goal is to extract profit from members as much possible. But credit unions are not supposed to be suicidal, giving up all their members’ money to serve some other organization’s needs. Rather, credit unions are supposed to be safe, non-exploitative repositories for people’s money. That’s their service.

In order to be safe places for people to put people’s money, current federal law requires credit unions to distribute their loans widely so that the failure of one recipient to repay the loan won’t topple the entire credit union. 12 USC Sec. 1757a reads:

Sec. 1757a. Limitation on member business loans

(a) In general
On and after August 7, 1998, no insured credit union may make any member business loan that would result in a total amount of such loans outstanding at that credit union at any one time equal to more than the lesser of –
(1) 1.75 times the actual net worth of the credit union; or
(2) 1.75 times the minimum net worth required under section 1790d(c)(1)(A) of this title for a credit union to be well capitalized.

To put it in vernacular terms, the idea is for the credit union not to put all of its eggs in one basket. But Rep. Corrine Brown, a relatively conservative Democrat from Florida, has introduced a new bill that would make an exception to credit unions’ careful lending practices: an exception for churches. Her bill, H.R. 3745, would insert the phrase “excluding loans made to nonprofit religious organizations” right after the text “total amount of such loans.” The effect: credit loans would be deregulated to allow a large portion of their capital to be loaned to churches.

Why, and to what kind of churches? Corrine Brown explains in her December 20 2011 remarks introducing the bill:

Mr. Speaker, today I introduced the Faith-Based Lending Protection Act of 2011. The bill modifies the Federal Credit Union Act to make it easier for credit unions to lend money to ministries. Specifically, the bill exempts loans to nonprofit religious organizations from the Credit Union Act’s caps on the volume of loans credit unions can make to businesses.

Mr. Speaker, many churches are in crises because they cannot get access to credit. In 2006, only two churches in the United States lost their buildings to foreclosure or short sale. Last year the number grew to 95.

Like many homeowners, they took out loans when times were good, but now their income has dropped and they need to refinance. Some have balloon payments that would be impossible to pay even in the best of times. The trouble is that many lenders do not want to do business with churches. Credit unions are in an excellent position to help. Credit unions get capital from their members and loan it to their members all of whom share a common bond. They know how to keep money in their communities and they want to do more. This bill will let them.

This non-partisan language has passed the House several times–sometimes on a voice vote. Now is the time to make it law. Churches cannot wait.

Rep. Brown wishes to draw a parallel between homeowners taking out loans and churches taking out loans. But unlike homes, churches are not residences; they’re not necessary for shelter. Churches are clubs, voluntary organizations that will have higher income if they have more members making donations to them, and that will have lower income if they have fewer members making donations. So what kind of churches does Corrine Brown want credit unions to do favors for? Unpopular churches.

What else characterizes the churches Corrine Brown wants to protect? They’re churches with bad credit, churches that banks don’t want to lend to because they can’t make their payments, partially because they aren’t getting the member donations they used to get and partially because they made the bad decision of taking out a loan with a balloon payment, letting the church pay small amounts at first and then have to pay a gigantic amount later. These churches can’t pay their current loans because they took out bigger loans than they could afford, and now want to take out more +loans. So what kind of churches does Corrine Brown want credit unions to do favors for by giving them especially big loans? The very churches that are unlikely to pay back the loans they get.

Remember that the law Rep. Brown wants to change is a law enacted to keep credit unions from collapsing from lending out big loans to bad creditors. This is in order to help unpopular churches that don’t have forward-looking leadership and that are more likely to default on those big loans. Rep. Brown’s bill therefore makes credit unions more likely to collapse, wrecking communities she says they’d be serving.

Turning credit unions suicidal to prop up poorly-run churches people don’t like? What makes that a good idea?

Have You Forgotten Obama’s Broken Promise On Corporate Immunity From Prosecution?

jclifford — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:48:20 +0000

Think back four years. Four years ago, what was Barack Obama doing?

Obama was in the U.S. Senate, and he had made a promise. Senator Obama had promised that, if there was any Senate legislation giving legal immunity to telecommunications corporations who had violated the law by supplying government spies with private information about millions of their U.S. customers (with no search warrant), he would not just vote against the legislation, but would filibuster it.

Senator Barack Obama did not keep his word. Just months after he made his promise, legislation was introduced that gave retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications corporations that had helped George W. Bush illegally spy on millions of law-abiding Americans. It was named the FISA Amendments Act. Barack Obama did not filibuster the FISA Amendments Act. He voted to approve it.

Now, as Barack Obama prepares his re-election campaign, he is being haunted by his past dishonesty. Rocky Anderson, presidential candidate for the Justice Party, is ready to remind you of Obama’s broken promise.

Anderson says, “We’ve seen Democrats and Republicans together granting retroactive immunity to the telecom companies. Then-Senator Obama promised this nation, before the primary, before he won the Democratic primary for the presidency, that he would join a filibuster against telecom company immunity. And then, as soon as he won the nomination, of course, he not only didn’t—he didn’t back off—only back off on his promise to join a filibuster, he voted for the legislation. Who in this country gets Congress to grant them retroactive immunity for committing clearly felonious acts? We need real leadership, and we need it now.”

For real leadership, vote Rocky Anderson for President this year.

Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson Take Different Approaches To Opposing SOPA

jclifford — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:14:59 +0000

Two progressive presidential candidates have taken action today to protest H.R. 3261, the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act. They have undertaken this protest with two very different approaches, however.

Justice Party presidential candidate Rocky Anderson wrote: “Great to see what websites like Google, Wikipedia, and Reddit are doing in response to SOPA (and PIPA). I am vehemently opposed to both acts. One of the essential elements of my campaign is the democratized means of communication that is helping to bring down dictators — and allowing us all opportunities through user-generated cyberspace the means to create, innovate, and yield a greater voice with expanded freedoms. I have often said that, in this campaign, social media will help us topple the dictatorship of corrupt money in our government.

Many current elected officials seem to have little regard for due process, as reflected in these bills, as well as in the outrageous NDAA provisions allowing for indefinite detention. We must act in every way to protect the rule of law, including due process rights. Due process is one of the most important features of a free society. There are a multitude of problems with these acts that are characteristic of the positions of many, if not most, Republicans and Democrats in recent years.

These bills are written in such broad terms that they effectively give corporations the purported legal justification to infringe on basic freedoms. For example, SOPA allows the Department of Justice and copyright holders to request court orders against those allegedly distributing copyrighted material without permission. These court orders can require search engines to omit search results of suspect websites, and require Internet service providers to block the site’s DNS records. On top of that, they could force payment processors (credit card companies, Paypal, etc.) to freeze accounts associated with those accused websites.

This would be devastating to the Internet, users, and to freedom generally. Initiatives like this have been implemented by some other countries, but the nature of these bills is akin to anti-freedom Internet policies of Iran and China. These bills (SOPA & PIPA) portend a further diminution of our freedom and democracy, ironically at a time when our government contends it is fighting wars to bring greater freedom and democracy to other nations.”

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein did not write in opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act. Instead, she posted the following graphic:

Which approach do you think is more productive?

Barack Obama Approves Law Subjecting Americans To Imprisonment Without Criminal Trial

jclifford — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 03:07:40 +0000

Today, when he presumed that you wouldn’t notice, because you’re too busy partying on New Year’s Eve, Barack Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act. The National Defense Authorization Act gives the government the power to grab anyone living within U.S. borders – citizen or non-citizen – and put that person into prison for the rest of their lives, without ever charging the person with a crime or putting the person on trial.

The National Defense Authorization Act gives the military the new role, once outlawed under Posse Comitatus, of acting as law enforcement across the United States. Thanks to President Obama’s signature on the NDAA, Americans who have never enlisted in the military or participated in any military action will now be subject to the harsh standards of military law. We all can now be treated as if we are “enemy combatants” – with no evidence that we’ve ever done anything wrong.

The National Defense Authorization Act gives the federal government the power to throw anyone – citizen or non-citizen – into prison. The imprisonment can last the person’s entire lifetime. No substantiated evidence against the imprisoned person is required. No criminal charges are required. No criminal trial is required.

These provisions are plainly in violation of the U.S. Constitution, which promises due process and fair trial before people, citizens or not, can be deprived of their liberty.

When Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization into law today, he promised that he wouldn’t use the law’s powers against American citizens.

Obama promised? Honestly, what do Barack Obama’s promises mean anymore?

Back in 2008, Barack Obama promised that he would end attacks on our civil liberties and restore the rule of law. Signing the National Defense Authorization Act into law is a direct contradiction of that promise, as a new attack on our civil liberties and undermining the rule of constitutional law.

Besides, even if you have trust that Barack Obama himself would never abuse the powers of the National Defense Authorization Act, what about the President after Obama? Do you trust that President?

What if Rick Perry, or Rick Santorum is the next President of the United States? By signing the National Defense Authorization Act into law, Barack Obama granted all future presidents with the power to throw Americans into prison for life on the basis of nothing more than an unproven accusation against the prisoner.

There is no good excuse for Barack Obama’s approval of the National Defense Authorization Act today. There is also no good excuse for any American who sincerely supports the preservation of the Bill of Rights, to vote for the re-election of Barack Obama in 2012.

Americans Organizing Recalls Of Senators Who Voted For Imprisonment Without Criminal Trial

Peregrin Wood — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 11:58:00 +0000

When the National Defense Authorization Act was passed, I recommended that Americans who care about liberty as established by the Constitution work to oppose the re-election of every U.S. senator who voted for the legislation, regardless of the senators’ political party affiliation.

Why? The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) gives the federal government the power to shut Americans behind prison bars for long periods of time without criminal charge and without criminal trial. That’s against the 5th and 6th amendments to the Constitution.

Now, though it’s a tough time of year to organize, with schools closing and people focusing on holidays, people across America are coming together to deliver political accountability to senators who voted to the NDAA. Nationally, a movement has formed to Recall Every Congressman Who Voted For The NDAA.

In Montana, this movement has gotten specific, seeking to remove both Max Baucus and Jon Tester from the U.S. Senate. Jon Tester is up for re-election next year. Max Baucus is not, but Montana law allows for the recall of senators.

Only eight other states allow recall of members of Congress. So, the goal of recalling every member of Congress isn’t really possible. Nine states seems like a great start, however, and there are 23 members of the Senate, and every member of the House, who voted for the NDAA and are up for re-election in the year to come.

Which of 3 Caucuses (Tea Party, Constitution, Progressive) Most Opposes Indefinite Detention in the USA?

Jim Cook — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 22:07:41 +0000

The Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution say that when people can’t be thrown into detention by the government for as long as the government wants, not without charges and a public trial by a jury of their peers.

H.R. 1540 is a piece of congressional legislation that says something entirely different. According to H.R. 1540, people can be thrown into detention by the government for as long as the government, even if they’re never charged with a crime. H.R. 1540 says that a person in America no longer has the right to a public trial by a jury of one’s peers. The House passed it, then the Senate passed it, and President Obama is about to sign it.

The Constitution is supposed to be the “supreme law of the land” (see Article VI), and all other laws must follow it, at least if lawmakers respect the Constitution. If lawmakers in Congress respected constitutional limits, they ought to have voted NO, against the passage of H.R. 1540.

It turns out that there are three House caucuses (that is, three organized groups in the House of Representatives) that declare their purpose is to ensure legislation abides by the U.S. Constitution. One of them is the Tea Party Caucus (track vote here), introduced by Representative Michele Bachmann with explicit and prominent reference to the U.S. Constitution:

“I formed the Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representatives in July 2010 because Congress had strayed from the fundamental principles of the Constitution…. Sadly, it seems today that the Constitution is no longer at the forefront guiding Congress.”

Another is the Constitution Caucus (track vote here), describing its mission in the following manner:

““The Constitution is the guide I will never abandon.” — George Washington….

Recognizing that the Constitution can only be preserved if it lives in the hearts and minds of the American people, the Constitution Caucus will provide an effective forum for education on founding principles and the appropriate limitations of congressional action.

A third is the Progressive Caucus (track vote here), which has this commitment as one of its four policy columns:

Protecting and Preserving Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

» To sunset expiring provisions of the Patriot Act and bring remaining provisions into line with the U. S. Constitution.

» To protect the personal privacy of all Americans from unbridled police powers and unchecked government intrusion.

How do the actions of these three caucuses’ members match up with their words? The graph below reveals patterns in caucus members’ votes on H.R. 1540 this December. A NO vote is a vote to defend the rights of people under the 5th and 6th Amendments.

The record:

Tea Party Caucus: 56 YES, 10 NO
Constitution Caucus: 46 YES, 12 NO
Progressive Caucus: 10 YES, 60 NO

If you’re angered by the conversion of the United States government into a gulag archipelago and you’re looking for a congressional caucus that stands with you in opposition, don’t look to the Tea Party Caucus or the Constitution Caucus. Those caucuses’ actions overwhelmingly belied their lofty words. Overwhelmingly, it was the Congressional Progressive Caucus that defended your constitutional liberties in action.

Tea Party Caucus Supports the Detain-People-Without-Charges-Forever kind of Freedom

Jim Cook — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 23:34:15 +0000

“I formed the Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representatives in July 2010 because Congress had strayed from the fundamental principles of the Constitution,” explains Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, chair of the Tea Party Caucus in Congress. “Sadly, it seems today that the Constitution is no longer at the forefront guiding Congress,” Bachmann continues. “This caucus will espouse the timeless principles of our founding, principles that all Members of Congress have sworn to uphold. The American people are doing their part and making their voices heard and this caucus will prove that there are some here in Washington willing to listen.”

It’s heartening to see a caucus that cares so dearly about the Constitution, isn’t it? Let Freedom Ring!

But let’s not stop there. Let’s also take a moment to consult this Constitution Michele Bachmann and the Tea Party Caucus hug and kiss in public. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution reads:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No person in America is supposed to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. In America, the government can’t just throw someone into jail forever because it wants to. According to the Constitution, the government must accuse a person of something, and it has to provide evidence to back up that accusation. Finally, a jury of the accused person’s peers is supposed to decide in a public trial whether the evidence proves what the government says it does. That’s all in the next clause of the Constitution, the Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

I mention these clauses because if the Tea Party Caucus was really formed “because Congress had strayed from the fundamental principles of the Constitution,” then it had a perfect chance to spring into action a week ago. On December 14 2011, the House of Representatives voted to pass H.R. 1540, a bill that grants government agents the power to detain people without placing them under arrest, to imprison a person without charge, and to keep them there until they die without ever granting them their right to a trial, or even the chance to learn what their rights are. This is a power that stands in contradiction of the 5th and 6th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. If the Tea Party Caucus is all about preserving the freedoms in the Constitution, then its members should have voted NO, against the passage of H.R. 1540.

Here’s how Tea Party Caucus members actually voted on passage of H.R. 1540 last week:

Tea Party Caucus members voting NO on H.R. 1540, AGAINST Indefinite Detention of People without Charge in America
Rep. Michael Burgess (Republican-TX, District 26)
Rep. Dan Burton (Republican-IN, District 5)
Rep. Mike Coffman (Republican-CO, District 6)
Rep. Jeff Duncan (Republican-SC, District 3)
Rep. Tim Huelskamp (Republican-KS, District 1)
Rep. Tom McClintock (Republican-CA, District 4)
Rep. Mick Mulvaney (Republican-SC, District 5)
Rep. Mike Pence (Republican-IN, District 6)
Rep. Phil Roe (Republican-TN, District 1)
Rep. Edward Royce (Republican-CA, District 40)
Rep. Timothy Walberg (Republican-MI, District 7)
Rep. Joe Walsh (Republican-IL, District 8 )

Tea Party Caucus members voting YES on H.R. 1540, FOR Indefinite Detention of People without Charge in America
Rep. Sandy Adams (Republican-FL, District 24)
Rep. Robert Aderholt (Republican-AL, District 4)
Rep. Todd Akin (Republican-MO, District 2)
Rep. Rodney Alexander (Republican-LA, District 5)
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (Republican-MD, District 6)
Rep. Joe Barton (Republican-TX, District 6)
Rep. Gus Bilirakis (Republican-FL, District 9)
Rep. Rob Bishop (Republican-UT, District 1)
Rep. Diane Black (Republican-TN, District 6)
Rep. Paul Broun (Republican-GA, District 10)
Rep. John Carter (Republican-TX, District 31)
Rep. Bill Cassidy (Republican-LA, District 6)
Rep. Ander Crenshaw (Republican-FL, District 4)
Rep. John Culberson (Republican-TX, District 7)
Rep. Blake Farenthold (Republican-TX, District 27)
Rep. Stephen Fincher (Republican-TN, District 8 )
Rep. John Fleming (Republican-LA, District 4)
Rep. Trent Franks (Republican-AZ, District 2)
Rep. John Gingrey (Republican-GA, District 11)
Rep. Louis Gohmert (Republican-TX, District 1)
Rep. Vicky Hartzler (Republican-MO, District 4)
Rep. Walter Herger (Republican-CA, District 2)
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (Republican-KS, District 2)
Rep. Steve King (Republican-IA, District 5)
Rep. Doug Lamborn (Republican-CO, District 5)
Rep. Jeff Landry (Republican-LA, District 3)
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (Republican-MO, District 9)
Rep. Kenny Marchant (Republican-TX, District 24)
Rep. David McKinley (Republican-WV, District 1)
Rep. Gary Miller (Republican-CA, District 42)
Rep. Randy Neugebauer (Republican-TX, District 19)
Rep. Richard Nugent (Republican-FL, District 5)
Rep. Steven Palazzo (Republican-MS, District 4)
Rep. Stevan Pearce (Republican-NM, District 2)
Rep. Ted Poe (Republican-TX, District 2)
Rep. Tom Price (Republican-GA, District 6)
Rep. Dennis Rehberg (Republican-MT, At Large District)
Rep. Dennis Ross (Republican-FL, District 12)
Rep. Steve Scalise (Republican-LA, District 1)
Rep. Pete Sessions (Republican-TX, District 32)
Rep. Adrian Smith (Republican-NE, District 3)
Rep. Lamar Smith (Republican-TX, District 21)
Rep. Clifford Stearns (Republican-FL, District 6)
Rep. Allen West (Republican-FL, District 22)
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (Republican-GA, District 3)
Rep. Joe Wilson (Republican-SC, District 2)

12 members of the Tea Party Caucus voted against H.R. 1540, and they should be commended for it. But their actions are far outweighed by the 46 Tea Party Caucus votes cast for indefinite detention without charge, for H.R. 1540.

If the Tea Party Caucus supports constitutional freedom, it must be the detain-people-forever-without-charges kind of freedom, the not-free-freedom that must be written about in somewhere else in the Constitution. I can’t find that clause, but it’s got to be in there because the Tea Party Caucus says it’s all about defending the Constitution. Maybe the Founding Fathers wrote Amendment Seven-and-a-Half in between the lines, in lemon juice. That must be it.

P.S. What about Michele Bachmann, the founder of the Tea Party Caucus, stalwart defender of freedom everywhere? You know, that Michele Bachmann? She didn’t show up for the vote.

XL Pipeline Push For 2 Months Unemployment A Terrible Exchange

The Green Man — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 12:53:30 +0000

The XL pipeline is a proposed project to lay a giant tube across the middle of the United States like a belt, a conduit for thick crude oil extracted from the Alberta tar sands flowing south across the Ogllala Aquifer all the way down to Texas, where the oil can be refined in order to be sold for burning. Current environmental protections clearly forbid such a project, but corporations from the fossil fuels industry have been pushing the Obama White House to create special waivers of those protections just for the XL pipeline.

The Obama Administration has so far been friendly to allowing the XL pipeline project to evade rules to protect the Ogllala Aquifer. This summer, however, a huge and prolonged protest took place outside the White House in which Americans demanded that President Obama allow the environmental protections to stay in place, and block the giant crude oil pipeline.

A few weeks ago, Barack Obama attempted to evade political responsibility for the XL pipeline. The Obama Administration announced that a decision about the pipeline would be made only after the 2012 election.

This political ploy was threatened yesterday when the U.S. Senate voted to approve legislation that would force Barack Obama to either approve environmental protections waivers for the XL pipeline or to deny the waivers within just a few months from now. Obama would be forced to choose between the environmentalists who got him elected in 2008 and the big oil corporations that could provide him with major funding for his 2012 campaign.

The Senate Republicans wanted to force the XL pipeline decision for obvious reasons: It’s a political disaster for Barack Obama, who has already alienated environmentalists and has come to rely on corporate backing for re-election campaign. However, the Senate Democrats did obtain a concession in exchange for the XL pipeline push. They got Republicans to agree to allow unemployment benefits to be paid, and the payroll tax cuts to be kept alive… for just two more months.

Just two months of unemployment benefits and a temporary lifeline for payroll tax cuts in exchange for a political time bomb planted in the middle of the 2012 Obama re-election campaign is a terrible deal. It’s not a fair exchange in the first place, but more importantly, this temporary deal allows Republicans to practice yet more political extortion in January and February, when payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits will be up for debate once again.

The deal made in the Senate yesterday is the latest in a long string of rotten deals made by congressional Democrats. The Senate Democrats allowed themselves to be outmaneuvered by the Republicans, negotiating in an open spirit while the Republicans played hardball.

Still, the deal may get even worse. Republicans in the House of Representatives have announced that they may force the Senate to renegotiate the legislation… because they think it’s not hard enough on the Democrats.

They Voted To Throw Americans In Prison Without Charge: Target These Senators In 2012

jclifford — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:11:23 +0000

Yesterday, the U.S. Senate had one final opportunity to defeat the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540). The NDAA grants the federal government the power to seize Americans and throw them into prison without trial for as long as it likes, on the mere accusation that the Americans imprisoned are somehow associated with a terrorist organization.

The accusation does not need to be substantiated with evidence. So, in essence the NDAA gives the federal government the power to imprison for life anyone it likes – citizen or not, within as well as outside U.S. borders.

Only 13 senators had the decency to vote against this terrible attack on American freedom.

But what can we do now?

23 of the U.S. Senators who voted in favor of granting the federal government the power to imprison Americans without trial are running for re-election in 2012. Their names are listed below.

John Barrasso
Sherrod Brown
Scott Brown
Maria Cantwell
Thomas Carper
Robert Casey
Bob Corker
Dianne Feinstein
Kirsten Gillibrand
Orrin Hatch
Dean Heller
Amy Klobuchar
Richard Lugar
Joe Manchin
Claire McCaskill
Robert Menendez
Bill Nelson
Ben Nelson
Olympia Snowe
Debbie Stabenow
Jon Tester
Sheldon Whitehouse
Roger Wicker

Americans who truly care about the cause of freedom, and don’t just wave a flag on the Fourth of July, should work to ensure that none of these senators are re-elected next year.

Don’t just withhold your vote. Tell your neighbors. Tell your friends. Spread the word on your Facebook account. These senators voted against American freedom, and they don’t deserve to stay in the United States Senate.

Indefinite Imprisonment Roll Call of Shame: Only Sanders, 6 Democrats and 6 GOP Stand Up

jclifford — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 01:28:11 +0000

Today, both the Republican and Democratic political parties lost the right to claim that they stand for freedom, justice and the American way.

In the U.S. Senate this afternoon, there came to the floor a terrible bill for a final vote. This bill, H.R. 1540, the Defense Authorization Act, contained a provision that would allow the federal government to imprison Americans without criminal charge for as long as it wants – on the mere accusation of association with a terrorist organization.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America declares that “No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. That makes H.R. 1540 plainly and profoundly unconstitutional. The issue isn’t even one of a right to a fair trial. At issue is whether Americans have a right to a trial at all. H.R. 1540 allows Americans to be punished for alleged crimes without any trial. The legislation completely overturns the presumption of innocence in American law, and creates a system where the presumption of guilt rules instead.

There were only 6 Democrats who voted against this insult to democracy. There were only 6 Republicans who had the courage to vote against it. Independent Senator Bernard Sanders was made the 13th senator out of 100 to defend Americans’ right to a trial.

The second group in the roll call you see below is the long list of U.S. senators who voted in favor of passage of the prolonged imprisonment of American citizens without criminal charge or trial. Every single one of these senators deserves to lose their next election. Nothing in the United States of America, not party loyalty or ideology, is more important than the fundamental right to be free of the fear that police can imprison a person without trial.

One more note, before the roll call. There lists below only add up to 99. One U.S. Senator didn’t even bother to cast a vote. Jerry Moran of Kansas gets the label of coward. On a matter of this importance, there’s no excuse for indecision and evasion of responsibility.

- The Roll Call of Honor -
Senators Who Voted Against Imprisonment Of Americans Without Charge

Senator Benjamin Cardin, Senator Thomas Coburn, Senator Mike Crapo, Senator Jim DeMint, Senator Richard Durbin, Senator Al Franken, Senator Tom Harkin, Senator Mike Lee, Senator Jeff Merkley, Senator Rand Paul, Senator James Risch, Senator Bernard Sanders, Senator Ron Wyden

- The Roll Call of Shame -
Senators Who Voted In Favor Of Imprisonment Of Americans Without Charge

Daniel Akaka, Lamar Alexander, Kelly Ayotte, John Barrasso, Max Baucus, Mark Begich, Michael Bennet, Jeff Bingaman, Richard Blumenthal, Roy Blunt, John Boozman, Barbara Boxer, Sherrod Brown, Scott Brown, Richard Burr, Maria Cantwell, Thomas Carper, Robert Casey, Saxby Chambliss, Daniel Coats, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins, Kent Conrad, Chris Coons, Bob Corker, John Cornyn, Michael Enzi, Dianne Feinstein, Kirsten Gillibrand, Lindsey Graham, Charles Grassley, Kay Hagan, Orrin Hatch, Dean Heller, John Hoeven, Kay Hutchison, James Inhofe, Daniel Inouye, Johnny Isakson, Mike Johanns, Tim Johnson, Ron Johnson, John Kerry, Mark Kirk, Amy Klobuchar, Herb Kohl, Jon Kyl, Mary Landrieu, Frank Lautenberg, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, Joseph Lieberman, Richard Lugar, Joe Manchin, John McCain, Claire McCaskill, Mitch McConnell, Robert Menendez, Barbara Mikulski, Lisa Murkowski, Patty Murray, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Robert Portman, Mark Pryor, Jack Reed, Harry Reid, Pat Roberts, John Rockefeller, Marco Rubio, Charles Schumer, Jeff Sessions, Jeanne Shaheen, Richard Shelby, Olympia Snowe, Debbie Stabenow, Jon Tester, John Thune, Pat Toomey, Mark Udall, Tom Udall, David Vitter, Mark Warner, Jim Webb, Sheldon Whitehouse, Roger Wicker