CHIEF FOE AS CHIEF DEFENDER?

During six years as a U.S. senator, John D. Ashcroft of Missouri frequently
voted and spoke against laws, regulations, practices and court decisions
that he would be responsible for enforcing if he is confirmed as the next
U.S. attorney general.

From gun control to affirmative action, from Roe v. Wade to FBI
eavesdropping on e-mail sent to criminal suspects, from drug treatment
programs to executive orders protecting gay federal employees, Ashcroft as
attorney general would have to uphold positions he has criticized or even
denounced.

"I believe it wrongheaded," Ashcroft said of the 1994 ban on assault
weapons, for example. "It . . . has severely restricted the rights of
law-abiding citizens to participate in many activities involving guns." The
Supreme Court decision that allowed states to impose restrictions on
protesters outside abortion clinics, he said on another occasion, "weakened
the First Amendment's speech guarantees."

While many senators confine themselves to several subjects of special
interest, Ashcroft's one term in the Senate produced a rich record of
forceful positions on crime and drugs, foreign policy, defense policy,
education and more. He once proposed tax cuts totaling nearly $5 trillion
over 10 years and the abolition of the departments of Housing and Urban
Development, Energy and Commerce.

Most relevant to his nomination are his views on a wide range of legal and
constitutional issues, which were clearly expressed in a series of hearings
Ashcroft held as chairman of a Senate Judiciary subcommittee. Those views
put him at odds with current law, government practice, prevailing court
opinions and members of the Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme
Court. He described one decision supported by three Republican appointees
on the Court as "illegitimate."

These subjects all fall within the purview of the attorney general. They
include judicial activism, privacy on the Internet, desecration of the
American flag, citizens' right to bear arms, the right to abortion and the
setting aside of some federal procurement contracts for racial minorities.

Now, with his confirmation hearing three days away, Ashcroft is working to
convince senators that he will impartially enforce the nation's laws as
head of the Department of Justice, whose 125,000 employees include the FBI
and an army of prosecutors and civil attorneys.

'Fair and Firm' In nominating Ashcroft for attorney general last month,
President-elect Bush did not refer to his political record or philosophy.
"I wanted someone who would have a commitment to fair and firm and
impartial administration of justice," Bush said. "I am confident I've found
that person in John Ashcroft."

But Ashcroft's record has convinced liberal groups that his nomination is
ripe for attack. People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group,
issued a report last week that concluded: "There is no question that
Ashcroft's extreme views place him at the far right of his party and out of
the mainstream of American belief."

Ashcroft has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution, including
proposals that would overturn Roe v. Wade by banning abortion, permit
prayer in public schools, require a "supermajority" in Congress to raise
any tax, permit Congress to outlaw desecration of the American flag and
impose term limits on members of Congress. He also proposed an amendment to
make it easier for state legislatures to avoid Congress and initiate
amendments to the Constitution on their own.

Congress did not approve any of the proposals.

By his own account, Ashcroft is a stern critic of the federal courts,
"probably more critical than any other individual in the Senate. I have
stopped [the nominations of] judges, and I have argued against liberal
expansionism, and I will continue to do so," he said in 1998.

He once questioned the procedure by which the Supreme Court interprets the
Constitution, saying at a Senate hearing: "We seem to grant less than half
a dozen folks in black robes across the street the right to amend [the
Constitution] any time they change their minds."

As a senator, Ashcroft took a leading role in trying to overturn the
Supreme Court's 35-year-old Miranda decision, which held that police must
tell suspects they have a right to a lawyer and the right to remain silent.
The court rejected his argument last year and reaffirmed by a 7-2 vote.

Ashcroft has opposed all forms of affirmative action and efforts to extend
the protections of anti-discrimination laws to homosexuals. Being gay is "a
lifestyle" and "a choice which can be made and unmade," he has said. In the
ratings of members of Congress calculated by various interest groups,
Ashcroft has consistently ranked among the most conservative members of
both houses.

The liberal Americans for Democratic Action gave him a zero rating for
1999; the conservative John Birch Society ranks him higher than Sen. Jesse
Helms (R-N.C.). On many controversial issues before the
Republican-controlled Senate, Ashcroft voted on the losing side with a bloc
of 25 to 35 of the most conservative senators.

Ashcroft was a proud loser on issues he cared about. For example, he
boasted that he had succeeded in forcing the Senate to vote on the idea of
a constitutional amendment to impose congressional term limits, though the
proposal failed.

Ashcroft himself has spoken out against political moderation. "There are
two things you find in the middle of the road," he told an interviewer in
1998, "a moderate and a dead skunk, and I don't want to be either one of
those." That same year -- as he contemplated a run for the presidency -- he
said:

"There are voices in the Republican Party today who preach pragmatism, who
champion conciliation, who counsel compromise. I stand here today to reject
those deceptions. If ever there was a time to unfurl the banner of
unabashed conservatism, it is now."

Some conservatives of a libertarian bent tend to oppose federal government
action on principle, but Ashcroft has often expressed his conservative
positions in support of strong federal action. He has favored requiring
states to give drug tests to beneficiaries of federal programs such as food
stamps, welfare and job training, and to deny benefits to those who test
positive.

He has proposed more extensive federal legislation against illegal drugs,
offering a bill that would have authorized police to conduct secret,
warrantless searches of suspected producers of methamphetamines. He
introduced a bill to extend the federal Corrupt Practices Act to the U.S.
Olympic Committee to criminalize bribing of international Olympic officials
by U.S. citizens, after scandal erupted over the way Salt Lake City won the
2002 Winter Olympics.

Public Forums As chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on the
Constitution, federalism and property rights, Ashcroft called hearings on
many of the most controversial constitutional issues of recent years. He
invited proponents and critics of his stands on those issues to testify,
and generally made a forceful statement of his own beliefs at each hearing:

- - Affirmative action: In September 1997, Ashcroft convened a hearing that
he called "Unconstitutional Set-Asides" to discuss the impact of the
Supreme Court's 1995 Adarand decision on the Department of Transportation's
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program.

The ruling set stricter standards for affirmative action programs such as
DOT's. The program establishes the goal that 10 percent of contracts signed
by states and localities under federal transportation programs should go to
"disadvantaged," principally minority-owned, businesses.

At the hearing, Ashcroft said this "program of official discrimination,
which has been held unconstitutional by the courts, should stop today. The
president should understand that attempting to heal the wounds of the past
by racial discrimination today undermines a future of racial reconciliation."

"You cannot presume that as a result of a person's ethnic origin that
person is economically disadvantaged," Ashcroft said. "There are
economically advantaged and economically disadvantaged individuals of every
race."

Nancy E. McFadden, general counsel of DOT, testified at the hearing:
"Respectfully, although this hearing is titled 'Unconstitutional
Set-Asides,' the fact is that the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program
is neither unconstitutional nor is it a set-aside.

"Let me state clearly, the Supreme Court has not ruled that the program is
unconstitutional," she said. McFadden also noted that the program "was
originally signed into law by President Reagan" and was "continued by
President Bush."

The program was reauthorized by Congress in 1998 and is still in operation.

- - Civil rights: Ashcroft's views surfaced at a hearing of the full
Judiciary Committee in November 1997, which considered the nomination of
Bill Lann Lee to be assistant attorney general for civil rights.

Although Lee had a "compelling personal history" and was "an outstanding
civil rights advocate," Ashcroft said, he was unacceptable as assistant
attorney general because he would pursue the job "with the kind of
intensity that belongs to advocacy, but not with the kind of balance that
belongs to administration."

Ashcroft said that for businesses that might be the targets of the civil
rights division's interest, "It's very costly to argue against what the
civil rights division is doing. That's why we need balance here rather than
advocacy."

Lee was not confirmed by the Senate. President Clinton named him acting
head of the civil rights division, the title he has held for three years.

- - Judicial activism: Ashcroft's subcommittee held hearings on judicial
activism in June and July 1997. "Judicial activism strikes at the heart of
our system of separation of powers," Ashcroft told that hearing.

"When individuals who were not elected and can only be removed with great
difficulty are making policy judgments unguided by a congressional or
constitutional text, then the people lose their constitutional rights and
their freedom to make their own decisions and to govern their own
institutions."

In the end, Ashcroft did not support any specific measure to curtail
judicial activism. He indicated interest in the idea of limiting federal
judges to 20-year terms, but did not formally propose the idea.

Ashcroft made a point of criticizing judges for what he called "activist"
decisions that he agreed with, as well as others he disputed. He said,
"Justices [John Paul] Stevens, [David H.] Souter and [Anthony M.] Kennedy
- -- Republican appointees one and all -- have demonstrated at least as much
activism as President Clinton's two nominees," justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg
and Steven G. Breyer.

He criticized the justices for ruling that the Constitution's due process
clause implied a limit on punitive damages when they rejected a $2 million
judgment against BMW for selling a used car as though it were new.

Ashcroft noted that he has supported legislation to limit punitive damages,
but he believed this "illegitimate" Supreme Court decision was the work of
"a handful of justices who simply saw their own policy preferences
reflected in the due process clause and imposed those preferences on the
rest of us."

At another hearing of his subcommittee, Ashcroft condemned the 1989 Supreme
Court decision protecting flag-burning as an exercise of free speech,
saying it amounted to an amendment of the Constitution by five Supreme
Court justices.

"So the question may be . . . how [the Constitution] is to be amended,
whether five judges decided to amend it in 1989 or whether the American
people have the right to amend it in 1999," Ashcroft said.

- - Gun control: Ashcroft has consistently opposed all forms of federal gun
control on the grounds that the Second Amendment to the Constitution
ensures an unimpeded "right to bear arms" to all Americans.

As attorney general, Ashcroft would oversee enforcement of federal firearms
laws, including some he opposes that are under challenge in pending federal
court cases. For example, the Clinton administration is defending the
assault weapons ban against a lawsuit that is before the Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit.

Ashcroft held a hearing in September 1998 on the Second Amendment, which he
called "a source of individual rights." The amendment says: "A well
regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Federal courts have held that because of this introductory reference to a
militia, the amendment does not guarantee unrestricted individual rights to
keep and bear arms, but rather the rights of the states to maintain an
armed militia. "This argument makes no sense to me," Ashcroft said at the
hearing.

"A citizenry armed with the right both to possess firearms and to speak
freely is less likely to fall victim to a tyrannical central government
than a citizenry that is disarmed from criticizing government or defending
themselves," he said.

- - Electronic surveillance: In March 1998, Ashcroft chaired a subcommittee
hearing that he introduced as one designed to "balance the debate by adding
the privacy interests of all U.S. citizens to the discussion." In his
opening statement, he said: "The FBI has argued that mandatory access to
privacy codes would make it easier for law enforcement to do its job. Of
course it would -- as it would be 'easier' for law enforcement to simply
repeal the Fourth Amendment," which bans "unreasonable searches and seizures."

Ashcroft foresaw a negative economic impact if the FBI had broad intercept
capabilities on Internet traffic. "Without the protection from privacy," he
said, "the Internet is doomed to the status of an international party line
or an international broadcast device that will never become a useful means
of education, commerce, communications or entertainment."

He also acknowledged that law enforcement officials "have legitimate and
important concerns. . . . We must work to provide law enforcement with the
necessary amount of access, but we must do so in a manner consistent with
our constitutional freedoms."