New standard for all state/fed legislation: Presumption of Abuse

Presumption of Abuse standard for legislation 
The standard for legislation needs to be reversed - and all legislation should be held to a presumption of abuse standard. 
Posted: 07.06.2008 

Op/Ed – Presumption of Abuse? You betcha, count on it, it’s just governmental nature.

What do I mean? When boundaries are set and limits imposed, there are always those that must test and push and expand those boundaries. Well, if the government can push, expand or take advantage of its authority, history confirms that it will do so.

Hence, the US Constitution, was created to limit and restrict the government, and prevent a tyranical King George from taking over.

However, when the boundaries are actually laws enacted by State or Federal Congresses, those who cross those boundaries (i.e. those who break the law), are labeled criminals and forced to pay back their “debts to society,” which are becoming more and more severe in recent years.

So too it should be with law enforcement and other governmental agencies, when they cross boundaries, and break the law, or even overstep the default boundary: the US Constitution.

Despite Constitutional restrictions, currently, courts will uphold legislations if they can hypothetically create some permissible interpretation, even if it is remot or only theoretical. This is the wrong approach given the lack of integrity and respect for the Constitution among law enforcement.

I am writing about this topic after reading about the ACLU’s tireless efforts to defend the Constitution and the recent report from the Inspector General’s identifying widespread, illegal and unconstitutional actions by the FBI, despite extremely loose “boundaries” by virtue of the incappropriately named PATRIOT Act. This is only one of a long series of such boundary crossings by agencies of the current, and past, administrations.

Therefore, I propose to change the standard of review that all legislation has to pass, before it can be enacted. The new standard should be the “Presumption of Abuse” standard. That is, all legislation should be reviewed, and hypothetically and rigorously “tested” for different scenarios, with a PRESUMPTION that law enforcement and other governmental agencies will abuse the legislation.

Then, the legislation should be drafted in such a way that anticipates and prevents such abuses (with payment of a severe debt to society). The government’s track record confirms widespread and rampant abuses of powers at all levels, particularly with law enforcement agencies that see themselves above the law and consistently and predictably push their authority, despite the most lenient of restrictions (i.e. FISA court’s minimal threshold).

Federal and state police accountability agencies (comprised of non-police affiliate citizens from the ACLU, Amnesty International, or other human rights organizations) would be a good corrollary to this new standard, to enforce violations.

Without the often-unrecognized heroes in the ACLU and Amnesty International, the Constitution would in fact be just a piece of paper under the Bush-Cheney reign, with only historic significance, as it is close to becoming. Thank you, ACLU for defending my (remaining) Constitutional Rights.