My five minutes

New American, The, March 17, 2008 by Thomas R. Eddlem

While senators generally have unlimited time for debate, members of the U.S. House of Representatives often have only five minutes to make their point heard before a final vote on important legislation. After the U.S. Senate passed the latest amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on February 12, I thought about what I'd say if I had the chance to speak for five minutes before the assembled U.S. House of Representatives (which was next on the legislative path for the bill). Here's what I'd say:

The pending bill, already passed by the Senate in a 68-29 vote, proposes to allow wiretap searches without warrants or probable cause. What that means in practical terms is that the federal government is going to be tapping the phones of people who are--by definition--probably not committing a crime. They are going to be tapping the phones of people who are probably law-abiding citizens. That's not only a colossal waste of law-enforcement resources and effort, it is also blatantly unconstitutional.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

   The fight of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
   papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
   shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
   probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
   describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
   be seized.

The Fourth Amendment sets forth a preamble of how it intends to protect the people from unreasonable searches, and then defines four tests needed for a search by the federal government to be constitutional. One, you need a warrant issued by a court. Two, the warrant needs to be based upon probable cause, meaning that there is more than a 50-percent chance a crime has been committed. Three, the warrant has to be supported by an oath. And finally, the warrant has to state--specifically--what is being searched for.

Those aren't very high hurdles for a search to take place.

Police officers at the state and local level have to surmount those hurdles every day, for a much larger menu of crimes--and for the most serious crimes, such as murder. They don't wail about these requirements being unreasonable or making the people unsafe.

But the president said in his February 16 weekly radio address that if he isn't given a pass by Congress to ignore the Constitution, we are all in danger: "Because Congress failed to act," he said, "it will be harder for our government to keep you safe from terrorist attack."

The president has essentially said that he can uphold the Constitution, or he can keep America safe from foreign attack. But he's not capable of doing both--and would prefer the latter.

If President Bush says he is not competent enough to adhere both to the limits of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment and keep America safe from foreign attack--like the presidents before him, and police officials in every state and municipality--I'll take his word for it. But if that is the case, he should resign to let someone more competent take charge of the Oval Office.

If his weekly radio address of February 16 is not an admission of incompetence, I don't know what such an admission would look like.

I'm sure the White House doesn't like the legislature reading the Constitution its members swore an oath to uphold, or, for that matter, critically analyzing President Bush's words against the lens of the Constitution. I know that perhaps some of my colleagues--and certainly White House legal officials--would say that I am "interpreting" the Constitution incorrectly. And I do confess that I need an interpreter ... when I am reading Latin or Greek. But the Constitution is written in simple, clear, declarative English sentences. While I don't speak Greek or Latin, I do speak and read the English language. I would ask my colleagues: "Have you been in Washington so long that you now need an interpreter to read the simple English prose of our Constitution?"

I don't think that the American people need an interpreter either, unless it is for the double-talk coming out of this city, and especially from the White House.

And no, I don't need to revise or extend my remarks. This pretty much sums up the legislation.

Thomas R. Eddlem, a freelance writer, served as the John Birch Society's Director of Research from 1991-2000.