|
|
Congressman
Elijah E. Cummings |
 |
|
|
Congressman
Elijah E. Cummings |
|
(1/7/06 Baltimore AFRO-American Newspaper)
We have been given a republic, if we can keep it
by Congressman Elijah E. Cummings
During the next few months, the Congress has some critical issues to resolve – determinations that will have a direct bearing upon our freedom as Americans.
Next Monday, the Senate begins its hearings on President Bush's nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito to the United States Supreme Court. Soon thereafter, the Congress as a whole must continue our ongoing debate about reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act.
We also must come to terms with the revelation that President Bush has ordered the surveillance of Americans' telephone calls without seeking the judicial oversight that many of us believe is required by federal law.
These are serious matters – and the arguments about them will be of historic, constitutional proportions. The debates will not be about President Bush's good intentions, but, rather, about how best to maintain the critical balance between our security and our freedom.
Consider the lessons of history.
At the close of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked whether Americans were to have a republic or a monarchy. "A republic," Franklin is reported to have replied, "if you can keep it."
Franklin's response reflected a harsh reality. A democratic republic, chosen by its citizens and constitutionally bound to respect their civil liberties, remains a hard-won and precious gift – as well as a legacy that easily can be lost.
This is why it is so remarkable that Americans have both preserved our constitutional republic and, over time, expanded the rights and freedoms of full citizenship to all.
Yet, history reminds us that the ancient Greeks and Romans also achieved a measure of freedom – only to lose their freedom to well-intentioned leaders who promised them greater security during times of national crisis.
We, too, must face and overcome this false choice between security and freedom if our own republic is to survive. Even when motivated by good intentions, unchecked power can become a cancer.
This was the lesson of history that convinced the Americans of Benjamin Franklin's time to entrust the future of our nation to a democratic republic. Under the Constitution that they created and refined, power in America would be divided among separate and co-equal political institutions.
That strategy for preserving our freedom is now being tested. The Congress and the President are engaged in an ongoing argument about how best to square the demands of security with the rights and protections of American citizenship that are guaranteed by our Constitution.
As we face this test, we would do well to remember just how well the separation of powers – the political checks and balances in our system of government – have served us in the past.
When the Senate Judiciary Committee begins its hearings on the confirmation of President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, 3rd Circuit Appeals Judge Samuel A. Alito, no one will be seriously questioning either Judge Alito's intellectual capabilities or his good intentions. What will and must be questioned, however, are his judicial philosophy and his wisdom.
Serious issues have been raised about Judge Alito's record of opposition to well-settled civil rights protections – a record that has led the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP and most other major civil rights organizations to oppose his appointment.
Equally disturbing, however, are the concerns that Judge Alito – if approved by the Senate – would vote to expand Presidential powers, restrict the ability of Congress to pass essential legislation and limit the judicial protections now afforded to American citizens.
As Americans, our historical experience has been that our freedoms have suffered without strong judicial protection. That is why the Alito confirmation hearings are so important.
It also is why both a "conservative" Congressman, Roscoe Bartlett, and a "liberal" Congressman, Elijah Cummings, have consistently voted to oppose the Patriot Act until more effective judicial oversight of the extraordinary powers that it grants is restored.
Ours is not an abstract concern. The revelation that President Bush authorized the surveillance of Americans' international telephone calls – while purposely foregoing the judicial oversight provided by law – has engendered a debate of immediate and constitutional proportions.
In reaction to the growing public outcry about this domestic spying, the President has argued that the Congress gave him the authority – or, in the alternative, that he has the "inherent authority" under our Constitution to do so.
However, neither of these arguments is carrying much weight with anyone but the President's most ardent supporters.
In essence, President Bush is asking Americans to trust him – and we should be able to trust the Executive Branch of our government to do the right thing as it works to protect us against terrorism.
Yet, to paraphrase former President Reagan, we also must be able to verify that our trust has not been abused.
Trust, but verify. This is the principle that must guide America during our ongoing search for a constitutional balance between security and freedom.
We have been given a republic – if we can keep it.
-The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings represents the 7th Congressional District of Maryland in the United States House of Representatives.
