The intensity with which Secretary Paulson and the Bush administration are pushing the $700 billion (read $1 trillion+) bank bailout bill is stunning. But even more staggering than the reckless speed is the open disdain for the U.S. Constitution.
kos pointed out in a mid-day post that the "'Crisis bill' was months in the making." According to Bush administration spokesman Tony Fratto, the bulk of the Paulson proposal was drafted over a series of months as a "contingency." One of the key contingencies, of course, is the language that makes the actions of the Secretary of the Treasury UNREVIEWABLE by the federal courts.
This sounds familiar: In 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act -- all 342 pages -- was introduced in Congress just 3 weeks after the September 11 attacks and passed just over three weeks later. Few pieces of legislation can compete with the constitutional damage of the PATRIOT Act, but the Paulson bailout proposal gives it a shot.
The most significant -- and sadly under-reported aspect of the proposed bill is the so-called "Section 8," which states in part:
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
In an article by Robert Kuttner in the American Prospect, he eviscerates any alleged justification for eliminating federal court oversight. Although he does not specifically reference the Patriot Act, Kuttner notes that the proposal is completely consistent with the Bush/Cheney administration's repeated attempts to suspend "normal constitutional safeguards in its conduct of foreign policy and national security."
There's a certain irony in the Bush/Cheney administration's distrust of the federal courts. The White House has, after all, essentially outsourced the selection and vetting of nominees to Christian Right organizations like the American Center for Law and Justice (founded by Pat Robertson) and the American Family Association (founded by James Dobson). But clearly, placating the Republican base with conservative judicial appointments does not guarantee that the more outrageous administration power grabs will survive scrutiny. The safest course is court-stripping, the removal of a court's ability to hear a case altogether.
In the last seven years, we've had two sudden, major crises. In both cases, the Bush/Cheney administration was standing ready with vast, sweeping legislation that substantially reduces civil liberties and constitutional protections. Fool me once, shame on Bush and Cheney; fool me twice, shame on all of us.
Frederick Lane is an attorney, expert witness, lecturer, and author who has appeared on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, the BBC, and MSNBC. He has just finished his fourth book, "The Court and the Cross: The Religious Right's Crusade to Reshape the Supreme Court" (Beacon Press May 2008), and is beginning work on "People in Glass Houses: The Right to Privacy in the Age of Electronic Voyeurism" (Beacon 2009). For additional information, please visit http://www.FrederickLane.com or call 802-318-4604.