Civil Rights

Following requests from myself, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and other House members, for an investigation of the National Security Agency's (NSA) warrantless surveillance program, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General Glenn A. Fine yesterday informed me that his office has opened a review of the agency's involvement with the program.

In his letter to me, Fine wrote, "The OIG previously received clearances relating to the NSA program for myself and two other OIG supervisors. After conducting initial inquiries into the program, we have decided to open a program review that will examine the Department's controls and use of information related to the program and the Department's compliance with legal requirements governing the program. On October 20, 2006, I made a formal request to the Attorney General for additional clearances for OIG staff to conduct this program review. The Attorney General forwarded the request to the White House, which makes the decisions on clearance requests relating to the program. Last week, I received word that the request for clearances for the OIG staff to conduct this review would be granted. As a result, the OIG has opened this program review, and I wanted to inform you of the review."

I must say that after trying for nearly a year to get DOJ to conduct an investigation of the NSA's warrantless spy program, I am very pleased to learn that the agency's Inspector General is finally opening an investigation that we were made to believe would never happen. While I'm glad that the White House finally relented and granted additional clearances for DOJ officials to conduct an investigation, I can't help but be skeptical about the timing. I wonder whether this reversal is only coming now after the election as an attempt to appease Democrats in Congress who have been critical of the NSA program and will soon be in control and armed with subpoena power. Read more...

After nearly a year of stonewalling, security clearances have finally been approved by the White House so that the Department of Justice can investigate its own involvement in the NSA's warrantless surveillance program.  I look forward to the results of this inquiry.  Congress needs to craft legislation so that terrorists can be the subject of surveillance while the Constitution of the United States is honored. To do that a full investigation into the program as a whole, not just the DOJ's involvement, will be necessary.

Reports that the Civil Rights Division is being politicized by the Administration -- by downgrading or ignoring recommendations of the professional staff, and through hiring decisions and in other ways -- are deeply troubling. Unfortunately, the straight answers to these questions that the public and the Senate deserve were largely absent from the testimony by the Administration’s witness at last week’s hearing.

When the President signed the Voting Rights Act just a few months ago, he pledged that his Administration would enforce the law with vigor. Oversight by Congress will be important to help ensure that.

Developing a memorial in honor of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is fitting and long overdue.

Dr. King, acknowledged as a peacemaker throughout the world for his promotion of nonviolence and equal treatment for all races, sparked the modern day civil rights movement. The movement and its legacy made it possible for millions of African Americans to enjoy rights and privileges not previously available. Because of Dr. King's courage and tenacity, America is a better place.

The 43-members of the Congressional Black Caucus salute those who have made a national memorial for Dr. King a reality.

The great Yogi Berra said it best: 'It's Déjà vu all over again.'  Except instead of the boys of October, we're talking about the long lines and broken machines of November. Allegations of election fraud and voter suppression were once rarities, today they're business as usual for the American voter.  It's time to stop throwing taxpayer dollars at a broken system.  Oregonians have a solution — Vote by Mail.

For more than a decade Oregonians have been successfully voting by mail.  Up to three weeks before Election Day, ballots are sent to all registered voters, giving busy families time to research their votes and carefully mark their ballots, which are then either dropped in the mailbox or delivered to secure drop boxes at libraries, county offices and other convenient locations.  Trained election officials then match the signature on each ballot against the signature on each voter’s registration card, before processing the vote. Read more...

Since 2003, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down archaic sex laws and the Massachusetts high court ruled that gay couples had a right to marry, we’ve heard right-wing activists and politicians, including President, Bush denouncing “activist judges Read more...

Last week’s New Jersey Supreme Court decision demonstrates once again that federalism works. The genius of our founders is on display in the Garden State. This decision makes it clear that the people of New Jersey don’t need federal intervention to deal with the question of how to treat gay and lesbian couples.

Not surprisingly, anti-gay groups and desperate politicians have used this decision to renew their push for the unnecessary anti-family Federal Marriage Amendment. This amendment tramples on the principles of federalism and is an unprecedented incursion into state affairs. Two hundred and twenty-five years of history show that the recognition and protection of families is an issue best handled by the states. Republicans have consistently advocated the importance of state and local governance. Rightly so, the GOP has railed against federal mandates and requirements. Now some in the party want to throw federalism out the window.

During the 2000 Vice-Presidential debate, Dick Cheney responded to a question about how same sex relationships should be recognized by government, “I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that’s appropriate. I don’t think there necessarily should be a federal policy in this area. Read more...

Sometimes a court’s attitude demonstrates judicial activism as much as its actions. A judicial opinion can tell us much about a court’s view of its role in the balance of separated powers, the hallmark of American republican government. The New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Lewis v. Harris speaks volumes: “Although courts can ensure equal treatment, they cannot guarantee social acceptance, which must come through the evolving ethos of a maturing society. Read more...

The only thing more outrageous than the majority ruling are the three concurring/dissenting justices who wanted to by-pass the majority's pretense of involving the Legislature ("Marriage or Faux Marriage and you get to name it") and declare a fundamental right to same-sex marriage. It could hardly get worse if you gave out gavels in a mental institution.

The majority had enough sense to know that nobody with a functioning brain would fall for the notion that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right deeply rooted in the history, traditions and conscience of the people of New Jersey or anywhere else on the planet. Nonetheless, after admitting that there is no Equal Protection Clause in the NJ Constitution, all seven agreed that since they had previously declared it to be there, it is expansive enough to include same-sex marriage. But, of course, they didn't bother to explain how the state's marriage laws, which apply equally to men and women and heterosexuals and homosexuals denies anybody equal protection.

The greater travesty here is the outright assault on democracy and the abuse of the separation of powers. The New Jersey Legislature should tell the court that they are not subservient to the court and will not obey their unconstitutional power grab. If they don't, the people of New Jersey should save a gazillion dollars and just eliminate the legislative and executive branches and yield their right to rule themselves to seven unelected lawyers.

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights, benefits, and obligations as heterosexual couples, and the Far Right went ballistic. Literally. Just read this quote from Matt Daniels of the Alliance for Marriage: "They are holding a gun to the head of the legislature of New Jersey and saying pick between two bullets -- one that allows civil unions and one that allows marriage."

This is the extreme rhetoric of a sinking ship. Two people of the same-sex are in love and want to protect their relationship and their children from discrimination, and our enemies compare this to murder.

The truth is that the New Jersey decision is perfectly in line with the will of the people of New Jersey. The state has a long tradition of being inclusive and fair-minded. It has a civil rights law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation and it has a strong hate crimes law. The legislature had already approved a statewide domestic partnership law with little to no opposition. And, recent polling data also shows that 50% of New Jerseyans support marriage equality and, by a margin of 2 to 1, they support some sort of relationship recognition such as civil unions. Read more...