It probably wasn’t the first sit-in for any of the Baby-Boom-aged Democratic members of Congress. But it was probably their first sit-in to protest against civil rights.
Democrats occupied the floor of the lower chamber, literally sitting on the floor to protest the House taking up other legislation or going into recess. They were demanding a vote on a clearly unconstitutional measure to restrict some American citizens’ gun rights without honoring that annoying requirement for due process of law contained within the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
Democrats would bar from gun ownership — a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment — anyone on a terror watch list or the federal no-fly list. In some ways this resembles standing federal laws barring felons from owning guns or ammunition. But there’s one key difference: Felons, by definition, have been formally charged and convicted. They were given the opportunity to defend themselves in court and to appeal their convictions.
There is no due process involved in putting someone on a terror watch list. You often don’t know you’re on it. There is no known formal burden of proof for placing someone on the list. And there is no process for getting yourself removed.
The list is “error-prone and unfair,” argues the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes it and similar legislation for that very reason. The proposal, ACLU argues, “uses vague and overbroad criteria and secret evidence to place individuals on blacklists without a meaningful process to correct government error and clear their names.”
The government doesn’t require “concrete facts,” or corroboration of evidence for putting people on the watchlist.
At the very least, some people would be deprived of their right to bear arms based on errors and bad evidence — and they’ll find themselves unable to appeal. But federal officials could also easily abuse the watchlist to punish and disarm those they dislike.
If you think this is unlikely, take one look at the two major party nominees this year and ask yourself if you think it’s beyond them to abuse power in this way.
Government officials abuse power. That’s one reason we have due process protections, and strictly limited and separated government powers. Just ask one of the leaders of the recent sit-in about government abuse of power: Civil rights leader John Lewis is pictured above, reviewing the file the FBI kept on him because of his activism for racial equality.
Another ballyhooed sitter-inner on Wednesday was Rep. Keith Ellison. Reporters pushed out a note from a staffer reading, “Your Mom called and wants you on the floor!” Ellison was the first Muslim member of Congress. The ACLU worries that “the government applies the watchlists in an arbitrary or discriminatory fashion, particularly against American Muslim, Arab and South Asian communities.”
Another congressman invoked his mother amidst this debate Wednesday. Justin Amash, a Republican from Michigan, wrote: “My mom grew up under an authoritarian regime in Syria that used secret lists to deny rights. Shameful that some in Congress demand same.”
The ACLU and conservative congressmen aren’t the only ones pointing out the flaws in the use of secret government lists. In 2014, a federal judge ruled that the no-fly list was unconstitutional because “without proper notice and an opportunity to be heard, an individual could be doomed to indefinite placement on the no-fly List.”
The judge ruled that “there is nothing in the … administrative or judicial review procedures that remedies this fundamental deficiency.”
So why do Democrats want to deprive Americans of fundamental rights without due process? There are two explanations. The first is that they’re not being serious — this is merely election-year politics and a crass fundraising ploy. Our editorial today garners evidence for that argument.
The second possibility, though, is that they actually mean it — that the Democrats don’t value civil liberties or any limits on government power if they interfere with their goals. If they want there to be fewer gun owners, then they’ll curb gun rights by any means necessary. The idea that the Constitution should stand between Congress and some desired social end is an anathema to them.
Neither possibility reflects well on the Democrats.
The climax of the sit-in came when the lawmakers burst out singing “We Shall Overcome.” Coming from politicians trying to strip the vulnerable of their rights, this song has eerie tones.
Timothy P. Carney, the Washington Examiner’s senior political columnist, can be contacted at [email protected]. His column appears Tuesday and Thursday nights on washingtonexaminer.com.
