Congressman Mike Pence just said that the health care legislation about to come up for a vote in the House of Representatives “breaks” “the consent of the governed”. But then, the legislation is being passed by a full House vote, with every congressional district in the nation participating in the vote through elected representatives.

How is it possible for anyone to seriously claim that legislation of this sort breaks the consent of the governed? Perhaps if we were talking about a constitutional amendment to eliminate free speech or another fundamental liberty, I’d agree that Congress could be breaking the consent of the governed, but this legislation is nothing of the sort.

Whether you agree with the strategy of health care reform in this particular legislation, you cannot honestly claim that the legislation breaks the consent of the governed. It’s clearly constitutional, fitting within the power of Congress to legislate interstate commerce, as well as the power to provide for the general welfare.

But then, Mike Pence may be less interested in making honest claims than in exciting his right wing political base to support his re-election. Pence also referred to Ronald Reagan’s old political philosophy, saying of tonight’s vote on health care reform, “It’s about whether we abandon the American Revolution”. The American revolution? Health care reform? I can’t remember the speeches given by the Founding Fathers about how the colonies must fight for independence from health care reform.

An opinion survey is being used by opponents of the health care reform bill currently being considered by the U.S. Congress. A summary of the survey’s results states:

“About 25 percent of respondents were primary care physicians (defined as internal medicine and family medicine in this case), and of those, 46 percent indicated that they would leave medicine — or try to leave medicine — as a result of health reform.”

“Try to leave medicine”? What is this “try to leave”? Is the the medical profession an organized crime family? If physicians truly want to abandon the practice of medicine and try take up another profession instead, they’ll do it… in the middle of a severe economic slump when huge numbers are looking for work and unable to find it. Does trying to leave medicine mean looking at the job market and deciding that staying put looks like a good idea after all?

These survey results remind me of something my 4 year-old daughter said this week when I took her to the bathtub. She didn’t want to be clean. She looked up at me from under a furrowed brow and declared, “I am never, ever going to take a bath again.”

“Yes, dear,” I said to her, “I know, but now it’s time to get into the tub. There, there.”

My daughter took a bath, even though she said she was never going to do it. She was throwing a tantrum just to let me know how upset she was. Now, 46 percent primary care physicians responding to this survey may well have said that they’ll quit (or “try”) medicine if health care reform legislation is passed. So…

What’s that, doctors? You’re going to run away from home? Yes, dears. I know, but now it’s time to pass health care reform. There, there.

I noted a couple of days ago the way that Congressman Ted Poe’s inconsistent position on medical privacy. Representative Poe claims to oppose government invasion of private medical records in the context of health care reform, but he actually voted to legalize virtually unrestrained government invasion of private medical records when he voted for the Patriot Act, and supported the extension of the Patriot Act this year without any reform at all.

Yesterday, Poe continued to display his legislative split personality. On the one hand, when it came to criticizing the Democrats health care reform legislation, Poe decried the way that government bureaucracies are “insensitive” to human needs. He said, “Living under government tyranny destroys the human spirit, the mind, the soul, and the body. The monopoly of government kills off the notion of individuality. Bureaucracies have an insensitive cookie-cutter solution for everything.”

On the very same day, Congressman Poe had the opportunity to actually do something about the problem of insensitive government bureaucracy. He had the chance to vote for H.R. 946, the Plain Writing Act. The Plain Writing Act, introduced by William Lacy Clay, will require federal government agencies to communicate with the people they serve in a way that is readily comprehensible to those constituencies – if it is signed into law.

The House of Representatives approved the legislation yesterday, with such support that 139 Republicans joined 247 Democrats to vote in favor. Ted Poe was not among them. Poe was one of 33 Republicans that voted against the Plain Writing Act.

It seems that Congressman Poe is happy to use the idea of unresponsive government bureaucracy as an excuse to oppose Democratic legislation, but when he’s given the opportunity to actually make government bureaucracies more responsive, he won’t lift a finger to do it.

No, I’m not going to stoop so low as to write about how Congressman Kevin Brady’s waistline is expanding because he eats too much sweet stuff at breakfast. The issue is sadly more serious than that.

The Republican politician, who represents the 8th congressional district in Texas, is having a special kind of breakfast this morning, at which he will meet with… anyone who can pay him the cost of the meal. “Please join us for coffee and pastries…” he writes on the invitation. And how much does a breakfast of coffee and pastries cost these days? $1,000.

Do you think it’s really coffee and pastries that people attending this breakfast will be buying?

Today’s fundraising event is the last in a series of three weekly opportunities to breakfast with Representative Brady set up by his re-election campaign staff. The invitation to these three fundraisers announces that each breakfast will be limited to just six attendees, and specifically recommends that attendees pay for all three breakfasts with a special one-time gift of $2,500 to Brady.

Imagine the opportunity to sit down with a member of Congress for breakfast, with just five other people in the room, perhaps some of them from your own company, for three sessions within just one month. That sounds like the perfect opportunity to make a political deal, doesn’t it?

If I were a lobbyist working for a corporation with business before the congressional committees on which Kevin Brady sits, would I see a few thousand dollars as a reasonable price for that kind of access? Sure. In fact, I might call it a steal.

For some time, we’ve been following members of the House of Representatives as they either pursue a policy course of legislative equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans or defend the status quo of inequality under law. There’s actually quite a bit of legislative activity pushing in both directions on Capitol Hill, and while the brain might not quite boggle at the prospect of following 100 senators, it’s easy to feel downright swamped tracking the 435 members of the House of Representatives. One manageable way to look at the trends in the House is to identify the politicians with the strongest records of support for and opposition to the LGBT equality agenda in Congress.

That’s what you can find in the lists below. These are the individuals with the strongest, most consistent activity in support of either pro-gay or anti-gay legislation, as measured by cosponsorship and voting patterns in 2009 and 2010. You can click on a representative’s name to learn about his or her voting and cosponsorship record in greater detail, and to find links to touchstone legislation on the issue of LGBT equality before the 111th Congress.

Members of the House of Representatives most friendly to the LGBT equality agenda on Capitol Hill

• Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI 2)
• Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV 1)
• Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA 8 )
• Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY 11)
• Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA 51)
• Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL 4)
• Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH 10)
• Rep. George Miller (D-CA 7)
• Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-nonvoting DC delegate)
• Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO 2)
• Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA 7)
• Rep. Fortney (Pete) Stark (D-CA 13)
• Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA 30)
• Rep. Lynn C. Woolsey (D-CA 6)

Members of the House of Representatives most strongly pursuing an anti-gay policy agenda on Capitol Hill

• Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (R-MD 6)
• Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN 7)
• Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN 5)
• Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-VA 4)
• Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ 2)
• Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH 4)
• Rep. Jerry Moran (R-KS 1)
• Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX 19)
• Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN 6)
• Rep. Joseph R. Pitts (R-PA 16)
• Rep. Mark Edward Souder (R-IN 3)
• Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS 4)

If your representative isn’t listed here, it doesn’t mean that she or he doesn’t have an identifiable position on the issue of discrimination by sexual orientation, but rather that his or her actions to follow through on that position aren’t as consistent as they might be. As always, data for the full House is available if you want to wade into the full set of 435.

With a final House vote on health care reform legislation drawing near, there are some very heated arguments being made against the program. Among the core arguments is that the health care legislation would create an invasion of privacy by the federal government, allowing the government to look at our private medical records. That’s the argument that was made by Congressman Ted Poe yesterday. Poe said,

The new health care bill is an invasion of people’s privacy. It’s another reason why we should vote it down. The government shouldn’t be sticking its nose into people’s medical records. It’s none of the government’s business. There’s a ‘health care integrity data bank’ in the bill that gives the Feds access to everyone’s medical records. Once the government has everybody’s medical records, none of that information is secure. Health care information should be between the patient and the doctor – and that’s all. Not the patient and some yet unnamed, anonymous, unaccountable Federal bureaucrat.”

What Congressman Poe didn’t say yesterday is that the government is already allowed to peek at Americans’ private medical records, and without adequate oversight at all. The big government snooping was enabled by the passage of the Patriot Act back in 2001. Ted Poe voted in favor of the law to allow unaccountable federal bureaucrats to look at private health care information.

Perhaps one might argue that Representative Poe had no choice, that he had to vote for the Patriot Act in order to ensure the security of the nation, even though he didn’t like the provisions that allowed federal government snooping on private medical records.

If that’s so, then Poe ought to have supported legislation to reform the Patriot Act. Exactly the opposite is true, however. Just at the end of last month, Poe voted in favor of extending the worst parts of the Patriot Act without any reform at all.

Given that Ted Poe affirmed his support for the snooping of big government bureaucrats into Americans private medical records, why should we accept his arguments against health care reform, on the basis of the need for medical privacy, at face value?

After the old CafePress system for delivering occasional newsletters broke down recently, we started looking for a way to introduce a new newsletter system to bring you the information you want from Irregular Times (and nothing else) to your e-mail inbox.

For a while, we tried to set up a system under PhpList, which has the advantage of being open source but the disadvantage of being almost completely inscrutable:

# you really cant set the value of this too high
# so be sure to get it right
# write in hexadecimal form plz
# for more detail also see default template config file kergiz.pb in data->corner->square->bin->bin->kermit->bin->lang->serbocroatian->empty->template->bin
# default is set two high for your protection W00T
#
$nuclear_water_level = 29A;

Fortunately, we found another piece of newsletter software, Dada Mail, which is both open source in origin and simple to use. As of today, we’re happy to offer a new set of newsletters which we’ve broken into particular topical areas so that you can get information of just the sort you’re looking for:

Irregular Times Activism Updates
Subscribe to this newsletter to get regular news about upcoming political protests and counter-protests as well as occasional reviews of past political protest actions.

This Week in Congress Newsletter
This weekly newsletter contains links to podcast conversations, coverage of recent and upcoming hearings, discussion of newly introduced bills and analysis of patterns in cosponsorship and voting, bringing it all together with an independent voice that transcends the Donkey-Elephant divide.

Bulletin of the Department of Credulity Studies
The Bulletin of the Department of Credulity Studies takes on faith of all sorts, from faith in a magical being in the sky, to faith in the miracles of Ionized Water, to faith in the Kenyan birth of a certain president. Written by the Alien Greys in the basement of the Illuminatus Templar complex underneath the UN towers.

Irregular Times Election Newsletter
Just about what it sounds like: our own independent take on political campaigns and elections.

Tech Dispatch
We’re interested in the use of technology to serve a meaningful end, not simply in the presence of buttons, the idea of style or the rush to find something ever-newer. This newsletter offers reviews of useful (and critiques of useless) hardware and software with their substantive use in mind.

New Political Stickers, Buttons and Shirts
Subscribe to this newsletter to receive updates with the latest in our line of political bumper stickers, buttons and sweatshop-free t-shirts. A great way to keep in touch with the political zeitgeist.

All of our new newsletters operate under the simplest of privacy policies:

• we won’t sell or rent or give your e-mail to anybody else
• we’ll only send you e-mails containing the newsletters you specifically ask for, and nothing else
• you can unsubscribe any ol’ time you like
• and that’s it

Please feel free to subscribe if you’re so inclined. Our first newsletters should be heading your way soon.

10 United States senators have introduced a bill that would enable the government to lock up American citizens for life without any trial, or even any criminal charges, and what has the reaction been? Almost nothing at all.

John McCain’s Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act is a radical attack against the free trial guarantees of the Bill of Rights, yet only four professional journalists bothered to publish articles specifically describing legislation. At the same time, about 170 blogs have published article about the bill. That’s an inadequate degree of scrutiny from the blogosphere, but it’s far and away superior to the scant attention that’s come from anemic the journalistic establishment.

Activity at Open Congress indicates that when people are made aware of McCain’s bill, they are overwhelmingly opposed to it. On that site, the bill has earned a rating of only one vote of support, with 82 votes of opposition.

The weak public reaction to this profoundly dangerous bill exposes the threat created as profit-driven corporations have hollowed out our nation’s journalistic institutions. Without many serious reporters remaining on the job, it’s up to independent voices to pick up the slack.

The Constitution is clear about what must happen when a person is accused of a crime: Except if the person is a serving member of the military during time of war, the accused has the right to due process of law, including a grand jury decision in cases of serious crimes, and to a quick and speedy trial, with many levels of protection from abuses by prosecutors, without being required to engage in acts of self-incrimination. These are the unequivocal requirements set down by the 5th and 6th amendments to the Constitution, and they cannot be overturned or overridden by any legislative action short of a new amendment to the Constitution.

Yet, overriding the 5th and 6th amendment is just what Senator John McCain intends to do with S. 3081, a bill he has named the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act. Consider this ominous passage from the proposed law:

“An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal charges and without trial…”

I hope that captures your attention. John McCain is proposing that the federal government be given the power to imprison its own citizens without criminal charges and without any trial.

But what about the qualification that a citizen, in order to be imprisoned in this way, would need to be “determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent”? What does that mean? How, under McCain’s legislation, would an American be “determined” to fit into this category?

There are two steps to this process. In the first step, you’re grabbed and taken into military custody and declared to be a “high value detainee” eligible to be held in jail for two days without the ordinary legal rights that we Americans take for granted.

Below are the criteria for the status of a “high value detainee”, as proposed by McCain’s bill. Pause, and give an extra second’s consideration to the last criterion especially:

“(A) The potential threat the individual poses for an attack on civilians or civilian facilities within the United States or upon United States citizens or United States civilian facilities abroad at the time of capture or when coming under the custody or control of the United States.

(B) The potential threat the individual poses to United States military personnel or United States military facilities at the time of capture or when coming under the custody or control of the United States.

(C) The potential intelligence value of the individual.

(D) Membership in al Qaeda or in a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda.

(E) Such other matters as the President considers appropriate.”

Such other matters as the President considers appropriate? What could that include? Why, practically anything at all.

Maybe someone accuses you of harboring sympathies for al Qaeda. Maybe someone says that you’ve been seen in the company of fundamentalist Muslims. Maybe you’re undermining Homeland Security morale. Maybe the President has other matters on his mind that he just doesn’t want to discuss with anyone, and you get in the way.

“As the President considers appropriate,” you, an American citizen, could get thrown into a military prison and kept there for two days, and longer if that’s determined to be “practical”, without any chance of a hearing through which you can face your accusers. You’d then become subject to consideration for open-ended imprisonment without trial.

Criterion C is a rather loose justification for imprisonment, too. If the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act gets passed, the American military could seize you and hold you as its prisoner based on the mere assertion that you might have information of some sort that would be of use to the government.

The landscape of interpretation of this part of the law is wide open, given that it requires merely a “potential” threat or possession of information. It’s almost impossible to prove that someone is not a potential threat. Potential is a matter of speculation of what might happen in the future if circumstances happen to go in a particular direction. John McCain’s bill replaces the need to base arrest warrants on evidence with a new low standard that allows the government to imprison American citizens only on the basis of imaginations of what future crime those citizens might commit in the future.

That power of imprisonment on the basis mere assertion is essential to understand when you evaluate this bill. You see, the determination of “high value detainee” status would not take place through a trial, or through an open hearing. McCain’s legislation establishes the power of the President to grant two “officers of the Executive Branch” the power to simply declare, without oversight or appeal, who is an enemy belligerent and who is not.

It gets worse. After an American citizen is designated a “high value detainee”, that person becomes eligible for designation as an “enemy belligerent”. An enemy belligerent is a person who meets the following criteria:

“(A) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners;
(B) has purposely and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or
(C) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of capture.”

That certainly sounds serious. We’d all like to see people who are engaging in violent “hostilities” against our own country in prison, wouldn’t we?

Keep in mind, however, that this legislation doesn’t specify that the hostilities need to be violent in nature. Could hostilities include something else, such as creation of information that’s not amenable to the United States? Furthermore, the hostilities don’t even need to be against the United States. They could be against one of many foreign countries that are counted as “coalition partners”.

Even in this context, the designation of “enemy belligerent” is a matter of mere assertion. The Secretary of Defense and Attorney General would have the power to meet and declare an American citizen to be guilty as an “enemy belligerent” without trial.

Even if one of these two officials disagreed with the designation, the President would still have the power to override those objections, and throw the person into prison for life anyway. So, if the Secretary of Defense accused an American citizen of being an enemy belligerent, and the Attorney General had evidence that the charges were phony, the President could have the accused person locked up for life anyway.

This arrangement has the President, Attorney General and Secretary of Defense acting as de facto judges, although they’re not Judicial Branch officials. These judges are, at the same time, the leaders of the prosecution. The Judicial Branch is supposed to act as a check on the prosecutorial powers of the Executive Branch, but McCain’s bill contradicts this separation of powers, established in the Constitution.

The determination procedure as designed in the legislation creates a mechanism for the conviction of alleged criminals completely out of public view, without a real trial, or even a hearing, and certainly no right of the accused to confront their accusers. The right to legal representation, and the right to a jury of peers would be taken away as well.

If the White House wanted an innocent American citizen locked up, designated as an “enemy belligerent”, no one could stop it. The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act thus creates the perfect mechanism for the imprisonment of political prisoners, right here in the United States.

Perhaps you’re still thinking that this law would not apply to you, because you’re living within the borders of the United States, where the military can’t just grab people off the street an imprison them without trial for as long as it likes. If the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act is passed, those old rules wouldn’t apply any more. The new law would undo Posse Comitatus, placing Americans living in the USA under the authority of military law enforcement. The bill explicitly states that it applies everywhere on Earth: “within the United States, its territories, and possessions, or outside the territorial limits of the United States”.

Along with McCain, the following U.S. Senators have cosponsored the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act:

Scott Brown
Saxby Chambliss
James Inhofe
George LeMieux
Joseph Lieberman
Jeff Sessions
John Thune
David Vitter
Roger Wicker

Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted on a resolution introduced by Dennis Kucinich, that would require the withdrawal of American soldiers from Afghanistan by the end of this year.

The active clause of the resolution read simply:

Pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), Congress directs the President to remove the United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan–

(1) by no later than the end of the period of 30 days beginning on the day on which this concurrent resolution is adopted; or

(2) if the President determines that it is not safe to remove the United States Armed Forces before the end of that period, by no later than December 31, 2010, or such earlier date as the President determines that the Armed Forces can safely be removed.

Only 65 members of the House of Representatives voted in favor of the legislation – 5 Republicans and 60 Democrats. 189 Democrats voted against a withdrawal from Afghanistan – more than three times the number voting in favor. How did your Representative vote? Check the roll call vote below to see.

Those voting YES on Roll Call 98:

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) / Rep. John Campbell (R-CA) / Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) / Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA) / Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) / Rep. William Lacy Clay, Jr. (D-MO) / Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, II (D-MO) / Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) / Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL) / Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-OR) / Rep. Michael F. Doyle (D-PA) / Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-TN) / Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) / Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) / Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) / Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA) / Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) / Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) / Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) / Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) / Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (D-FL) / Rep. Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) / Rep. Timothy V. Johnson (R-IL) / Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) / Rep. Walter B. Jones, Jr. (R-NC) / Rep. Steve Kagen (D-WI) / Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) / Rep. John Larson (D-CT) / Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) / Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) / Rep. Dan Maffei (D-NY) / Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) / Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA) / Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) / Rep. James P. McGovern (D-MA) / Rep. Mike Michaud (D-ME) / Rep. George Miller (D-CA) / Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) / Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA) / Rep. Richard E. Neal (D-MA) / Rep. David R. Obey (D-WI) / Rep. John W. Olver (D-MA) / Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) / Rep. Donald M. Payne (D-NJ) / Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) / Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) / Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) / Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) / Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA) / Rep. Linda T. Sanchez (D-CA) / Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) / Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) / Rep. Jose E. Serrano (D-NY) / Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) / Rep. Fortney (Pete) Stark (D-CA) / Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) / Rep. John Tierney (D-MA) / Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY) / Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-MA) / Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez (D-NY) / Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) / Rep. Diane E. Watson (D-CA) / Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) / Rep. Lynn C. Woolsey (D-CA)

Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-NY) / Rep. Robert B. Aderholt (R-AL) / Rep. John Adler (D-NJ) / Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) / Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA) / Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA) / Rep. Robert E. Andrews (D-NJ) / Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY) / Rep. Steve Austria (R-OH) / Rep. Joe Baca (D-CA) / Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) / Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) / Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) / Rep. John Barrow (D-GA) / Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (R-MD) / Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) / Rep. Melissa Bean (D-IL) / Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) / Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV) / Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-CA) / Rep. Marion Berry (D-AR) / Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL) / Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA) / Rep. Gus Michael Bilirakis (R-FL) / Rep. Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. (D-GA) / Rep. Timothy H. Bishop (D-NY) / Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) / Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) / Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) / Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) / Rep. John Boccieri (D-OH) / Rep. John A. Boehner (R-OH) / Rep. Jo Bonner (R-AL) / Rep. John Boozman (R-AR) / Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK) / Rep. Leonard L. Boswell (D-IA) / Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) / Rep. Charles W. Boustany, Jr. (R-LA) / Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL) / Rep. Robert A. Brady (D-PA) / Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) / Rep. Bruce Braley (D-IA) / Rep. Bobby Bright (D-AL) / Rep. Paul C. Broun (R-GA) / Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL) / Rep. Henry E. Brown, Jr. (R-SC) / Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL) / Rep. Vernon Gale Buchanan (R-FL) / Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) / Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) / Rep. G. K. Butterfield, Jr. (D-NC) / Rep. Stephen E. Buyer (R-IN) / Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) / Rep. Eric I. Cantor (R-VA) / Rep. Joseph Quang Cao (R-LA) / Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) / Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) / Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) / Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO) / Rep. Christopher Carney (D-PA) / Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN) / Rep. John Carter (R-TX) / Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) / Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-DE) / Rep. Kathy Anne Castor (D-FL) / Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) / Rep. Ben Chandler (D-KY) / Rep. Travis Childers (D-MS) / Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-SC) / Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC) / Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO) / Rep. Steve Ira Cohen (D-TN) / Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) / Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) / Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-VA) / Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) / Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA) / Rep. Jerry F. Costello (D-IL) / Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT) / Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R-FL) / Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) / Rep. John A. Culberson (R-TX) / Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-MD) / Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA) / Rep. Susan A. Davis (D-CA) / Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) / Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-TN) / Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) / Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) / Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro (D-CT) / Rep. Charles W. Dent (R-PA) / Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) / Rep. Norman D. Dicks (D-WA) / Rep. John D. Dingell (D-MI) / Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) / Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-IN) / Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) / Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-OH) / Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX) / Rep. Vernon J. Ehlers (R-MI) / Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) / Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) / Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-NY) / Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA) / Rep. Bobby Etheridge (D-NC) / Rep. Mary Fallin (R-OK) / Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA) / Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) / Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) / Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) / Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) / Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL) / Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) / Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) / Rep. Rodney P. Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) / Rep. Marcia L. Fudge (D-OH) / Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) / Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) / Rep. E. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) / Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-PA) / Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) / Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) / Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) / Rep. Charles A. Gonzalez (D-TX) / Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) / Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) / Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX) / Rep. Samuel B. Graves (R-MO) / Rep. Al Green (D-TX) / Rep. Gene Green (D-TX) / Rep. Parker Griffith (R-AL) / Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY) / Rep. John Hall (D-NY) / Rep. Ralph M. Hall (R-TX) / Rep. Deborah DeFrancesco Halvorson (D-IL) / Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL) / Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) / Rep. Gregg Harper (R-MS) / Rep. Richard (Doc) Hastings (R-WA) / Rep. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) / Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) / Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) / Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA) / Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD) / Rep. Brian M. Higgins (D-NY) / Rep. Baron P. Hill (D-IN) / Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) / Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-NY) / Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX) / Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) / Rep. Paul Hodes II (D-NH) / Rep. Tim Holden (D-PA) / Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) / Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA) / Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD) / Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R-CA) / Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) / Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) / Rep. Steve J. Israel (D-NY) / Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) / Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) / Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) / Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) / Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) / Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski (D-PA) / Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) / Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) / Rep. Dale E. Kildee (D-MI) / Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-MI) / Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH) / Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) / Rep. Steve King (R-IA) / Rep. Peter T. King (R-NY) / Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) / Rep. Mark S. Kirk (R-IL) / Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ) / Rep. Larry Kissell (D-NC) / Rep. Ron J. Klein (D-FL) / Rep. John Kline (R-MN) / Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL) / Rep. Frank Kratovil, Jr. (D-MD) / Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) / Rep. Leonard Lance (R-NJ) / Rep. James R. Langevin (D-RI) / Rep. Rick R. Larsen (D-WA) / Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA) / Rep. Steve C. LaTourette (R-OH) / Rep. Robert E. Latta (R-OH) / Rep. Christopher J. Lee (R-NY) / Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-MI) / Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) / Rep. John Linder (R-GA) / Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL) / Rep. Frank A. LoBiondo (R-NJ) / Rep. Dave Loebsack (D-IA) / Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) / Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) / Rep. Frank D. Lucas (R-OK) / Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) / Rep. Ben Ray Lujan, Jr. (D-NM) / Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) / Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) / Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) / Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA) / Rep. Connie Mack (R-FL) / Rep. Donald A. Manzullo (R-IL) / Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-TX) / Rep. Betsy Markey (D-CO) / Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA) / Rep. James D. Matheson (D-UT) / Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA) / Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) / Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) / Rep. Michael T. McCaul (R-TX) / Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) / Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) / Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) / Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) / Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC) / Rep. Howard P. (Buck) McKeon (R-CA) / Rep. Michael McMahon (D-NY) / Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) / Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA) / Rep. Kendrick B. Meek (D-FL) / Rep. Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY) / Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA) / Rep. John L. Mica (R-FL) / Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA) / Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL) / Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI) / Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) / Rep. Walter (Walt) Minnick (D-ID) / Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-AZ) / Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV) / Rep. Dennis Moore (D-KS) / Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI) / Rep. Jerry Moran (R-KS) / Rep. James P. Moran (D-VA) / Rep. Christopher Murphy (D-CT) / Rep. Scott Murphy (D-NY) / Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) / Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA) / Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) / Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) / Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) / Rep. Glenn Nye III (D-VA) / Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-MN) / Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) / Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz (D-TX) / Rep. Bill Owens (D-NY) / Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) / Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ) / Rep. Ed Pastor (D-AZ) / Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN) / Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) / Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) / Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA) / Rep. Gary Peters (D-MI) / Rep. Collin C. Peterson (D-MN) / Rep. Thomas E. Petri (R-WI) / Rep. Joseph R. Pitts (R-PA) / Rep. Todd R. Platts (R-PA) / Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) / Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) / Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) / Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) / Rep. David E. Price (D-NC) / Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL) / Rep. George P. Radanovich (R-CA) / Rep. Nick Joe Rahall, II (D-WV) / Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R-MT) / Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA) / Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) / Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX) / Rep. David (Phil) Roe (R-TN) / Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) / Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) / Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) / Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) / Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL) / Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) / Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) / Rep. Michael A. Ross (D-AR) / Rep. Steven R. Rothman (D-NJ) / Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) / Rep. Edward R. Royce (R-CA) / Rep. C. A. (Dutch) Ruppersberger (D-MD) / Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D-IL) / Rep. Timothy Ryan (D-OH) / Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) / Rep. John Salazar (D-CO) / Rep. John P. Sarbanes (D-MD) / Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) / Rep. Mark Schauer (D-MI) / Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) / Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) / Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL) / Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR) / Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-PA) / Rep. David Scott (D-GA) / Rep. Robert C. Scott (D-VA) / Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) / Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) / Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) / Rep. John B. Shadegg (R-AZ) / Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) / Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) / Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) / Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC) / Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) / Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID) / Rep. Albio Sires (D-NJ) / Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) / Rep. Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-NY) / Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE) / Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ) / Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) / Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) / Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR) / Rep. Mark Edward Souder (R-IN) / Rep. Zack T. Space (D-OH) / Rep. John M. Spratt, Jr. (D-SC) / Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) / Rep. John Sullivan (R-OK) / Rep. Betty Sutton (D-OH) / Rep. John S. Tanner (D-TN) / Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS) / Rep. Harry Teague (D-NM) / Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE) / Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) / Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS) / Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA) / Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) / Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) / Rep. Patrick J. Tiberi (R-OH) / Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) / Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) / Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) / Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) / Rep. Christopher Van Hollen, Jr. (D-MD) / Rep. Peter J. Visclosky (D-IN) / Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) / Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN) / Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) / Rep. Melvin L. Watt (D-NC) / Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) / Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) / Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) / Rep. Edward Whitfield (R-KY) / Rep. Charles Wilson (D-OH) / Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) / Rep. Robert J. Wittman (R-VA) / Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-VA) / Rep. David Wu (D-OR) / Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY) / Rep. Don Young (R-AK)

Rep. J. Gresham Barrett (R-SC) / Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) / Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) / Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) / Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) / Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) / Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) / Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) / Rep. Bill Young (R-FL)

Federal law requires the President of the United States to appoint a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. This board is to be placed within the White House but given independent status. Fusion centers are proliferating across the country and taking on the power to construct disseminate government profiles of innocent Americans; administrators and officers at these fusion centers are required by law to take civil liberties training developed by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is tasked under federal law with the study of how surveillance and other intelligence activities protect (or do not protect) the civil liberties guaranteed to Americans by the United States Constitution, and is required by federal law to report to Congress with its findings.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board does not exist.

414 days after his inauguration as President of the United States, Barack Obama has failed to appoint the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board that the law requires. Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi sent Barack Obama a letter earlier this year asking him when he plans to appoint the Board. Thompson has received no reply. After writing President Obama a letter about the matter and getting no answer, Representative Jane Harman took to the floor of the House on February 25 to note his lapse:

Let me also mention that under the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, we required that the White House establish a privacy and civil liberties commission to oversee the development and implementation of laws with respect to terrorism. That commission was never fully established in the last administration, and this administration has yet to name a chairman and a vice chairman.

I urge the President again to fully implement the provisions of the 2004 Intelligence Reform Act. Standing up
that commission would send a message that we can protect our security, but we can also protect our liberty. This is not a zero-sum game.

In April of 2009, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy and Ranking Republican Arlen Specter wrote Barack Obama a reminder that under the law he must appoint a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board:

Dear Mr. President:

We commend you for your commitment to restoring accountability and transparency to our national government. We write to bring to your attention an urgent need to reconstitute the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (“Board”) – a critical government component established by Congress to ensure that privacy and civil liberties concerns are appropriately considered in developing and implementing the Nation’s counterterrorism policies. At the recommendation of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission), Congress created the Board as an agency within the Executive Office of the
President in 2004. During the 11oth Congress, we worked hard to reform and reconstitute the Board, to give it more independence.

Having a fully functional Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is vital to protecting the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans and to ushering in a new era of responsibility in our government. We urge you to nominate qualified individuals to fill the vacancies on the Board at the earliest opportunity.

We look forward to working with you. Again, thank you for your commitment to protecting the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans.

Respectfully,

Patrick Leahy, Chairman
Arlen Specter, Ranking Member

After waiting more than a year for Barack Obama to follow federal law and appoint the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, Senator Patrick Leahy has at least rhetorically run out of patience, publicly releasing another letter he’d sent to President Obama:

Dear Mr. President:

In April, Senator Specter and I wrote to urge you to promptly reconstitute the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (“Board”). I write again to encourage you to nominate qualified individuals to the Board at the earliest opportunity.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an integral component of our counterterrorism policies established by Congress to ensure that privacy and civil liberties concerns are appropriately considered in developing and implementing these measures. At the recommendation of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission), Congress created the Board as an agency within the Executive Office of the President in 2004. During the 110th Congress, I worked with many others in the Senate to reform and reconstitute the Board, to give it more independence.

Having a fully functional Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is a key step in protecting the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans. Given the many pressing privacy and civil liberties issues facing our Nation, including timely issues related to counterterrorism and cybersecurity policies, this vital Board has remained vacant for far too long.

I look forward to working with you on this important issue.

Respectfully,

Patrick Leahy, Chairman

Thanks and commendations for Barack Obama’s supposed “commitment to restoring accountability and transparency to our national government” and “commitment to protecting the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans” are conspicuously lacking in the second letter.

Members of Congress are engaging in the politest of diplomatic requests toward the President: please, sir, respectfully speaking, would you, um, follow the law? The President, in response, is blithely ignoring their entreaties. Considering his active disrespect for Americans’ civil liberties over the past year, we can expect Barack Obama will continue to neglect his duty to appoint an oversight board until either the Congress or the American people get over their reticence and embarrass him into action.

Congressman Bart Stupak has been among that sort of Democratic politicians that progressives find it difficult to rely upon. He’s not formally a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, but he sometimes opposes progressive legislation, as Blue Dogs do. In 2002, Stupak voted against the resolution to go to war in Iraq. In the waning days of George W. Bush, however, Stupak voted in favor of the FISA Amendments Act, which retroactively legalized a massive spying operation against the American people.

This year, focus on Congressman Stupak is centered around the issue of health care reform. Stupak provoked a significant amount of anger among Democrats nationwide when he hobbled health care legislation by adding an amendment that would dismantle insurance coverage of abortion, not just in new government plans, but also in private insurance.

Yesterday, former teacher Connie Saltonstall announced her intention to challenge Stupak in the Democratic primary election to be held in August. Her primary rationale for the challenge is Stupak’s opposition to reproductive rights. That’s a stand that is generally regarded as politically progressive, but does it qualify Saltonstall as a progressive challenger?

Saltonstall has not yet articulated a general political philosophy, much less particular policy positions. She has merely stated that she favors health care reform and that she is pro-choice. What are her positions on other issues, such as the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, civil liberties, climate change, transportation and marriage equality?

Before progressives pledge their support to Saltonstall, they should wait to understand her political position as a whole, not just in the light of the issue of the moment.

A year ago this month, former Rep. Ellen Tauscher introduced H.R. 1283, a bill to repeal the discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy of the U.S. military. Although Tauscher has since left Congress to join the Obama administration, her bill remains in active consideration before the House, with 190 cosponsors adding their formal support (Peter Visclosky and Dennis Moore are the most recent cosponsors, adding their support in the past two weeks).

It took until this past week for parallel legislation to be introduced to the Senate; on March 3, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut brought S. 3065 up for consideration by the Senate Armed Services Committee, of which Lieberman is a member.

You might find yourself halting there in suspicion: Joe Lieberman, that Democrat-Not-Even-In-Name, introduced a bill to abolish DADT? Surely there must be some catch, some change, some conniving difference in the legislation meant to undermine it…

… surely not. There are a few small differences between S. 3065 and its House counterpart, but they are in the direction of tightening up the legislation:

* The addition of a Pentagon Working Group tasked with thorough implementation of DADT repeal;

* The addition of a catch-all statement mandating that the military not only change its regulations in three specific areas to end sexual orientation discrimination (the approach of H.R. 1283), but also change whatever additional regulations need to be changed in order to ensure such discrimination is ended.

* The addition of a mandated report to Congress, 6 months after the passage of the bill, describing the impact of DADT-repeal on military recruitment at colleges that had banned recruiters due to the military’s anti-gay discrimination.

The following are the 13 cosponsors joining Lieberman in support of DADT repeal in the Senate:

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL)
Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Sen. Al Franken (D-MN)
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA)
Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO)
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)

With the support of Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin, S. 3065 should be able to take a relatively smooth path to consideration on the floor of the Senate.

When American liberals questioned the record of some candidates being selected (without primaries) by the Democratic Party back in 2006, do you remember what the response was?

With a Democratic majority in Congress, just “imagine” the changes!

In particular, Democratic partisans asked liberal voters to “imagine John Conyers” as the chair of the House Judiciary committee. Boy, would things be different or what?

Chlorocardium at the Smirking Chimp, October 2006:

There are many reasons to WORK to see control shift. It will definitely be an improvement, a starting point.

Just as an example: Imagine John Conyers as chair of the Judiciary Committee!

Willing to put off the second stage of house cleaning until after we get to the first one???

Russron at Daily Kos, July 2006:

Can you imagine John Conyers as Judiciary Chairman instead Senslessbrenner? Can you say new Downing Street Hearings? Can you say hearings into Domestic Spying and Torture?

Truthdig, August 2006:

Should the Democrats retake control of the House after the 2006 midterm elections, Conyers would become the chairman of the Judiciary Committee—which would give him the power to call hearings and subpoena witnesses. It is widely whispered that should Conyers ascend to the chairmanship, he may initiate articles of impeachment against the president.

Republicans like Tom DeLay were appearing on television, predicting an amazing shift if the Democrats won a congressional majority in 2006 and John Conyers were granted the chair of the Judiciary Committee. Hardball with Chris Matthews, April 4 2006:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: What would happen if Henry Waxman got the subpoena power in the Government Reform Committee? What would happen if John Conyers of Michigan got the subpoena power? Would they go after the president?

TOM DeLAY: Sure, they would. They’ve — they’ve tried the whole time we’ve been in the majority, just look at what they’ve been doing. Henry Waxman is constantly calling for investigations — mostly frivolous investigations to make political points. John Conyers has even called for the impeachment of the president.

MATTHEWS: Do you believe that –

DeLAY: What do you — What do you think he’s [Conyers] going to do if he’s chairman of the Judiciary Committee?

MATTHEWS: You have an inside view, Congressman, of what they will do. I know their records. I know their philosophies. But you tell me, the man in the news today, do you believe that the Republicans, if they lose the House, will turn over the subpoena power to people who will try to impeach the president?

DeLAY: Absolutely.

Yep, if John Conyers got the chair of the Judiciary, we sure would have to watch out, because big change would be a-coming, right?

Well, John Conyers got that chair three years ago. What’s happened since? No impeachment, that’s for sure. No truth commissions. Instead, we’ve had John Conyers voting to reauthorize the Patriot Act, without an iota of reform. Conyers’ excuse: that after eight and a half years of these Patriot Act surveillance provisions, and after three years during which he had held the chair of the Judiciary Committee, he still hadn’t worked out legislation to reform those provisions. He needed some more time to figure it all out, Conyers explained, which is why he voted to keep the Patriot Act exactly as-is.

That was last month. John Conyers got his wish — Patriot Act surveillance powers were reauthorized without any reform. So you can imagine that in his capacity as Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers has been eager to get that reform going. You can imagine he’s introduced some new legislation to reform the Patriot Act. You can imagine he’s jumped into action, scheduling hearings for this spring to unpack the civil liberties problems associated with the use of Patriot Act powers. I mean, heck, time’s a-wasting, right?

Oh, you can imagine all that. Imagine it all you like, but check legislative databases and House Judiciary schedules and you’ll see that your imagination has run away with you. John Conyers hasn’t done any of those things. He’s done nothing. Even the revelation that the FBI had broken the Patriot Act law to mount surveillance against law-abiding journalists hasn’t prodded Conyers into action.

Conyers is backed up by a president of his party in the White House and the biggest congressional majorities the Democrats will see for years to come. We don’t have to imagine what John Conyers would do with the power and advantage of the House Judiciary Chair any longer. Conyers has responded to this opportunity with nothing.

Is nothing what you voted for?