This exchange between the DailyKos community and Democrat Jane Harman–one of her party’s more serious national security advocates–is pretty funny. The exchange started with some allegations by a Kos ‘diarist’ against Harman and others:
Select members of Congress have been briefed, at least in part, on the Bush Administration Warrantless Wiretapping Program since 2001. The “Gang of Eight” and other Congressional leaders briefed on The Program when it was clearly in violation of existing FISA law included several Democrats still in leadership positions in Congress. It is not surprising these Democratic leaders are now willing to compromise on every surveillance concession demanded by the White House. Nor is it any surprise that they are willing to grant retroactive immunity to TelCos…. Because TelCo immunity will likely mean immunity for the Administration officials who ordered the illegality. And of course, it will also mean immunity* for the Congressmen and women who gave a Congressional green light to the Administration.
What rubbish! For those like me who insist that the President’s domestic surveillance program must comply fully with the Constitution and the 4th Amendment, the only way for Congress to get there is with a veto-proof majority. That’s why I’m working with Republicans. Got a better idea? I opposed the FISA-gutting Protect America Act last August and supported the much-improved H.R. 3773, which did not include retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. I call on the White House to do more than share selected documents with a handful of Senators – how do we know what the White House is not providing? In my view, the question of retroactive immunity cannot even be considered until Congress is fully informed about what happened and under what authority.
Then came the responses:
It’s not the first time a member of Congress or their staff has displayed appalling ignorance of the Constitution on these pages.
…But I’m not sure she was asking for a meaningful exchange. She was just trying to squelch dissent, based on her tone and words. She doesn’t like having her own patriotism questioned, nor her loyalty to her oath of office.
However, I would heartily support periodic testing done by the ABA regarding basic understanding of one’s duties under the Constitution. But what would be the penalty for failing the test… maybe an instant election of some sort? Here’s an idea: offer the test open to the public as well. Those in the district who pass are eligible to take the seat, should the elected representative fail the test. Fill the empty seat by lottery, rejecting those who are unwilling, and seat them in the interim as you hold a new election.
she deserves a primary challenge. I was opposed to a primary challenge for her in 2006 on the basis of her Iraq policy – I may not have agreed with her, but a primary challenge seemed excessive and bad politics at the time.
I appreciate Representative Harman’s willingness to admit to us that she knows nothing about her oath, the Constitution, or legislative procedure. That is very brave. Also not very bright — though if she would take the opportunity to read the comments here, she might learn something about how to protect and defend the Constitution by not passing bad laws.
It’s a good thing the Netroots are such an asset to the Democratic party. Hat Tip: Blogometer
