Monday, December 17, 2007

Senator Sessions Jumps the Shark

Two of the first news reports I saw today made me very happy: a Federal Judge declared White House visitor logs are public documents (cnn.com) and Sen. Harry Reid Pulled the FISA Telecom Immunity Bill Off the Senate Floor.

Score two for the U.S. Constitution!

Then I read a quote that sent a chill up my spine. During the debate before Reid pulled the bill, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama said, “The civil libertarians among us would rather defend the constitution than protect our nation’s security.” (emphasis added)

Just in case anyone needs a reminder, U.S. Senators take an oath to support the Constitution! If you vote in Alabama, please remind your Senator of his oath.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Does anyone have a YouTube of this? I couldn't find this quote in the Congressional Record.

Anitra said...

I've sent an email to Sen. Sessions asking for verification of the quote.

Erik said...

The record's been edited - yes they can do that, for grammar supposedly. We'll have to wait for someone to put a video out if it's real.

Anitra said...

Senator Sessions has not yet replied to my email. This is what is in the Congressional Record after editing (p. S15724).

In reference to some of the restrictions on the CIA legislated before 9/11, Senator Sessions said (emphasis added): "Many Members of this body were warned when they were made the law of the United States, they were warned then that if we did these things it was not wise. But, oh no, the others loved the Constitution more, they loved liberty more, so these unwise laws were passed. And what happened afterwards, after 9/11? Well, we properly removed both of those silly rules. We have taken them off the books, in a bipartisan, unanimous way. They were never required by the Constitution. They were never sensible from the beginning. But we passed them on emotion not reason."

The first emphasized section sounds like Sessions rejects the love of liberty and the Constitution. The second emphasized section indicates that he just has a different opinion about what is required to uphold the Constitution. (I do not know whether this section was inserted later.)

There is a difference between opposing the Constitution and having an opposing opinion on what the Constitution says.

I am not yet willing to let Sessions off the hook. I want to hear his defense of his original statement. And I still think his opinion about what the Constitution says amounts to deliberate ignorance.

What is the difference between deliberately destroying the Constitution, and letting it die from neglect?