Congress is currently debating due process rights for American citizens. Democrats are trying to institute a ban on those who have been secretly placed on any number of terrorist watch lists and “no-fly” lists from purchashing a firearm.
The American Civil Liberties Union has repeatedly warned against the use of these lists as a means to restrict the Second Amendment. The requirements for being put on the lists are vague, and prone to error. Indeed, innocent people are on the list with no meaningful way to get their names removed.
Even Gawker’s Alex Pareene has opposed the Democrats’ proposed ban, using some language that I can’t repeat here. The liberal commentator goes so far as to call their proposal “racist” because it would disproportionately affect Muslims. Either way, Democrats in the House are now sitting on the House floor out of frustration that they cannot, under the Fifth Amendment, deprive American citizens of liberty without due process of law.
So far, Republicans have stood firm, including Sen. Marco Rubio, who is now running for re-election. He voted against the ban in December and again on Monday. In December, Rubio defended his vote by reminding people that innocent citizens are on the list.
That’s great, but Rubio has a due process problem. He has signed on to a Senate bill that deprives college students of due process when they are accused of sexual assault.
When he announced that he was running for re-election, the Florida senator said that the Senate can be a place where one can “perform great services for the people you have the honor of representing” and where “great policy advances can be made.” For the remainder of his term and especially if he’s re-elected, there is definitely some good that Rubio can do — if he has the courage to change his mind again.
Rubio is one of the original co-sponsors of the Campus Accountability and Safety Act. It’s a terrible bill which, in the current context, essentially guarantees anyone accused of campus sexual assault will be found responsible, no matter what the evidence is. Rubio could do some real good by either publicly renouncing the bill as hostile toward the due process rights of accused students, or publicly and privately lobbying to fix it.
CASA supporters claim that the bill provides equal protections for accusers and the accused, but this is untrue. The bill mentions the words “due process” three times, but doesn’t set any standards for what schools must do to provide such rights. Basically, the only sop to accused students from the bill is the requirement that schools inform them in detail of the charges against them. It’s been like pulling teeth even to get schools to do that much nowadays.
The bill that Rubio is now co-sponsoring doesn’t require schools to provide or allow attorneys to be present for either party. Because every accused student faces a possible criminal trial, anything he says at a campus hearing would be admissible. Expecting 19-year-old kids to understand this or adequately prepare is preposterous.
CASA supporters like Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., argue that accused students don’t need due process because they’re not going to jail. But getting expelled for sexual assault has serious consequences, especially if you’re innocent. And again, every student facing such a procedure also faces a potential criminal trial.
Rubio may face a tough re-election, as his own home state didn’t vote for him for president. But iIf he is re-elected, he can make good on his statement from earlier this year by stopping the assault on the due process rights of college students.
Ashe Schow is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.
