CLINTON'S 'JACKBOOT' LIBERALISM

By all accounts, President Clinton worries constantly about his legacy. He
need not: His assault on constitutional values, as well as conventional
morals, is unmatched. Indeed, he has gutted the Democratic Party's
commitment to civil liberties.

Democrats like Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis all
represented a humane liberalism with a commitment to civil liberties. No
one would make that claim about Bill Clinton, who represents a new
political philosophy: jackboot liberalism.

Record numbers of wiretaps, repressive "anti-terrorism" legislation,
support for mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses, suspicious
Internal Revenue Service audits of political opponents, White House
interference with banking investigations, attacks on anti-abortion
protesters, threats against critics of federal housing projects, media
intimidation, bureaucratic witch hunts, brutal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms and FBI raids, interference with state laws relaxing use of
marijuana for medical purposes, purloined FBI files. It is a record that
puts Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon to shame. And it continues today.

With administration support, Congress is pursuing legislation to enhance
penalties for methamphetamine production. The Methamphetamine
Anti-Proliferation Act would also impose a dangerously sweeping ban on
information pertaining to drugs and drug paraphernalia. No good is likely
to come from the measure, since it will be no more effective than past laws
in stopping drug use. Even worse, though, buried within the legislation are
provisions gutting Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable
searches and seizures. The federal government would be allowed to carry out
secret searches — now allowed only in special circumstances — with notice
given three or more months later, if ever (the 90-day requirement could be
extended indefinitely).

Moreover, the government would not need to provide an inventory of any
intangible property, most importantly computer files or document copies,
that were seized. Basic to the operation of the Fourth Amendment is knowing
what the government has done. Asks David Kopel, research director of the
Independence Institute, "how can a person challenge a warrant if they never
find out about it until after the harm has been done?"

An invisible search is inherently unreasonable. Those who dislike being
constrained by the Fourth Amendment hid their handiwork in the meth bill
for a reason: it wouldn't pass otherwise. So, according to a Senate
Judiciary Staffer quoted by the Asheville Tribune, Senate Judiciary
Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, Utah Republican, and the Justice Department
buried the change "deep in the bill, and nobody noticed until the thing had
already passed."

No notice, no hearings. Committee spokeswoman Jeanne Lapatto even
disclaimed any knowledge of the provision. The Senate approved the
legislation, S. 486, last fall with little debate. The companion measure,
H.R. 2987, now is coming before the House Judiciary Committee, where Rep.
Bob Barr, Georgia Republican, a former federal prosecutor, is leading the
opposition. Mr. Barr opines that "It's unconscionable that someone would
try to sneak these provisions into an unrelated bill."

He has gained the support of bill sponsor Rep. Christopher Cannon, Utah
Republican, as well as House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde,
Illinois Republican. But proponents were not content to stick the measure
in the meth bill. The same provisions are also buried in Senate bankruptcy
legislation, now in conference with the House. Conference committee reports
are ill-read and notoriously difficult to defeat. Which is why the
administration used this tactic to gain authorization for warrantless
"roving" wiretaps (of phones used by or near particular individuals): a
measure previously defeated on its merits was snuck into a conference
committee bill after both houses had voted on the original measures.

The potential deception does not stop there. An aide to Mr. Barr worries
that even if the provisions are stripped from both the meth and bankruptcy
bills, "I think we'll see it again, later in the appropriations process.
Justice has decided to do whatever it can" to pass the measure. That is, if
the amendment fails in its current form, proponents are likely to try to
stuff it into one or more omnibus spending bills, which are often approved
in a rush at the end of the budget year.

Especially after the disastrous 1995 government shutdown, legislators
hesitate rejecting any appropriations measure, irrespective of the poison
pills attached. At least in the republic's early days, legislators
occasionally read the measures on which they were voting. Today it is a
rare lawmaker who knows the substance of the bills before him, let alone
the details. Congressional inattentiveness is bad enough at any time. But
when the executive is ever willing to sacrifice individual liberties and
the judiciary is ever willing to ratify state aggrandizement, legislative
abdication usually allows evil to triumph.

Come next Jan. 20, the public career of America's premier jackboot liberal
will end. But liberty will remain at risk unless Congress and the people
remain vigilant.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.