By David Harsanyi
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
It was heartening to see so many conservatives criticize
Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ new proposal to expand the use of civil asset
forfeiture, a policy that allows government to seize the private property of
citizens without any judicial oversight or genuine due process. The notion that
government doesn’t need to prove guilt before dispensing with punishment is the
bailiwick of authoritarians.
And, quite often, Democrats.
With all the well-earned criticism of Sessions, let’s not
forget that less than a year ago John Lewis and many other Democrats conducted
a congressional sit-in to fight for legislation that would have stripped
Americans who were placed on secret government watch lists — hundreds of
thousands of them; many who had never been convicted, much less accused, of any
crime — of their constitutional right to bear arms. Even the American Civil
Liberties Union argued that policies based on flawed terror lists would
undermine civil liberties.
This didn’t stop Sen. Chris Murphy from holding a 15-hour
scaremongery filibuster to offer Americans a grossly distorted false choice:
give up the Fifth Amendment or see your children die. It was then that Minority
Leader Harry Reid called the existence of due process for at least a million
Americans on these lists, often placed there without explanation, a “terror
loophole.” And it was then that Sen. Joe Manchin went on Joe Scarborough —
another person whose concern for the Constitution ebbs and flows with the
vagaries of the moment — to claim that
“due process is what’s killing us right now.” It was the Obama administration
that had instituted new rules that banned Americans with disabilities —
millions of citizens who absolutely pose no risk to anyone — from their
constitutional rights, as well.
Not even this was enough for Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who
proposed legislation that would not only restrict Americans on watchlists today
but anyone who had been on any watch list for the past five years and anyone
who had traveled to Middle Eastern countries like Iraq or Syria during that
time. So, using their own arguments regarding Donald Trump’s travel ban, they
wanted to strip Muslims of their rights.
And Democrats wanted to leave discretion on implementing
this list to the Justice Department. For now, at least, Sessions runs the
Justice Department. This, no doubt, was unexpected. Still, to recap, the
Democratic Party proposed legislation that would have empowered the Trump
administration to put any citizen it deemed suspicious into a government
database for any reason it chose and treat them as a suspected terrorist. And
it was the Democratic Party that empowered the Trump administration to deny
these citizens an individual right explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution
and upheld by the Supreme Court.
I know it’s considered intellectually vulgar to bring up
past liberal transgressions in the Age of Trump, but I always recall this
episode when I see Democrats feigning concern for the rule of law or the
sanctity of process. Now, after the 2016 presidential election, you’d think
that they would have learned that preserving the process benefits them, as
well. They did not.
Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos is now the target of
liberal ire for proposing to fix the Department of Education’s Office of Civil
Rights adjudication of campus sexual assault. DeVos has promised to return the
office “to its role as a neutral, impartial, investigative agency” because over
the past years it has “descended into a pattern of overreaching, of setting out
to punish and embarrass institutions rather than work with them to correct
civil rights violations and of ignoring public input prior to issuing new
rules.”
The Obama administration’s DOE had sent a “Dear
Colleague” letter in 2011 to colleges and universities around the country
asking them (by which we mean directing them) to adjudicate sexual assault and
misconduct cases under Title IX not by a “clear and convincing evidence”
standard but by a “preponderance of evidence.” The letter also “strongly”
discouraged cross-examination of alleged victims — which is often the most
effective way of ferreting out lying — because it “may be traumatic or
intimidating” to the alleged victim. The new standards also allowed accusers to appeal “not guilty” findings
and permitted punishment to be meted out before any investigation was even
conducted.
36 Democratic Party senators were “extraordinarily
disappointed and alarmed” by this proposal that would restore fundamental
fairness and basic due process to schools.
Setting aside the fact that scores of young men have had
their lives destroyed by false claims, it should be noted that the basic tenets
of due process aid the victims, as well. Not only by protecting their rights,
in general, but by creating a system that makes sure their accusations will not
be doubted. Now, I see that some Republicans have risen to criticize their own
administration on the civil asset forfeiture issue. Are there any notable
Democrats who will stand up to their own party’s horrible record on due
process?
No comments:
Post a Comment