With much fanfare, President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act on March 9, 2006. After the signing ceremony, and with no fanfare whatsoever, he quietly included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act’s expanded police powers.

Calling the Patriot Act ‘’a piece of legislation that’s vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people,” President Bush disagrees with the act’s oversight provisions. These requirements are there to assure that the FBI does not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers by keeping close track of the use of such powers and reporting them to Congress.

Good for him. As Commander in Chief it is his job to wage the war on terror. Why does Congress want this information anyway? It is obvious; many in the chamber are more concerned with kissing the rear ends of the terrorists than kicking them. Nobody wishes to live in a police state. Nor does anyone want to live in fear or in a radioactive city. The Patriot Act does not risk the former but can help prevent the latter. To those opposed to commonsense measures to protect our families, friends, and neighbors, let us consider another example of presidential courage.

In 1902, Theodore Roosevelt invited representatives of owners and labor in the Pennsylvania coal strike to Washington. Confessing to having no legal authority to interfere, he therefore merely asked both parties — in the interests of the people — to come to an agreement before the onset of winter. Without coal, millions would suffer and potentially thousands would die. Praised for his efforts by the press and the people, the discussion initially went nowhere as big business and labor refused to reach an agreement. Roosevelt shortly thereafter warned mine owners that if they did not settle the strike, he would personally order in federal troops to settle the matter for them.

His train of thought, essentially, was that though two disputing parties were willing to allow thousands of people to freeze to death, he was not. And he had the power to do something about it. It might not have been “legal” — and might certainly does not make right — but might has no higher calling than its use in the cause of right.

Others were not so wise. Warned by one of his aides that such intervention by the government was unconstitutional, Roosevelt took the man by the collar and declared, “The Constitution was made for the people and not the people for the Constitution.” It takes guts to act – something we need in our Chief Executive. But the real quality it reveals in Roosevelt’s character is his understanding that people themselves, and not a piece of paper — no matter how old that document might be or how many remarkable and wise men contributed to its contents — are the truly important factor in matters of national crisis.

I do not for a moment mean to suggest that our brilliant Constitution is not important, no longer relevant, or lightly ignored. On the contrary, it is one of the most important factors in the United States’ status as the world’s greatest nation. However, Roosevelt was completely correct. The Constitution should benefit the people, not the other way around.

Roosevelt was not the only president to behave thus, and President Bush won’t be the last. Lincoln, regarded by many as our greatest president, is perhaps the president who went farther beyond the Constitution than any other. Naturally, others motives were either foolish or selfish, ignoring the law for less critical or less noble reasons. Our second president, John Adams, signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts that effectively nullified the First Amendment. Kennedy and Johnson, in their suppression of political dissent (thanks in large part to the efforts of J. Edgar Hoover) ignored the Constitution. Nixon did as well. These examples obviously deserve criticism.

A great leader, however, understands when to act and knows the difference between acting in self-interest and acting in the interests of the people. That is why I have little patience, and even less respect, for presidents who fail to understand this. James Buchanan (president from 1857 to 1861) is a prime example; he remained mostly inactive on the issues tearing the United States apart during his term. What efforts he did make relied on constitutional doctrines only. He refused to see the fact, however, that constitutional measures were not working. He therefore simply left the matter for his successor to face.

Of course, our entire government — not just presidents — exceeds the powers granted by the constitution. Often, they twist an obvious meaning into something else entirely. Neither the words “social” nor “security” even appear in the document. The words “free healthcare” are also absent. Our government does all kinds of things not specifically laid out in the Constitution, things that rightfully fall to the states to manage. The Federal Government nevertheless continues on, assuming more and more responsibilities and powers as the years pass.

One thing that our Constitution does spell out, however, is treason. It is explained thus: “in levying War against them (the United States), or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” I don’t think I’m twisting an obvious meaning into something else entirely when I say that plenty of Democratic senators (who have the power to affect policy and public opinion) have provided aid and comfort to our enemies by fighting the Patriot Act and by revealing their desire to end a war they call a “mistake” prematurely.

What could comfort an enemy more than to know his adversary is weakening his ability to fight effectively, tying his own hands behind his back, and that his will is faltering? Also, I would say that coddling someone is not much different than providing them aid and comfort. If a captured terrorist is known with certainty to have information we need to save lives and refuses to corporate, use whatever means necessary to extract that information. But I digress.

The point is that I don’t want some gutless worm seated in the Oval Office. The criticism will always be there by the opposition — Democrat or Republican. In most ways this is not an entirely bad thing. Indeed, it is usually positive until such opposition goes so far that criticism and resistance are the standard answer to any and all measures suggested by the other party simply because they are the other party. But when lives are at stake there needs to be agreement and compromise. The Patriot Act makes sense — if only many of our congressmen would too.

—

Jeff O’Bryant is an amateur historian and holds two degrees, a bachelor’s in education and a bachelor’s with honors in history. He is a columnist and staff writer for The Catoosa County News and can be contacted at jeffobryant@catt.com.