Jon Kyl, the most dangerous man in the Senate

Why Jon Kyl may be the most dangerous member of the U.S. Senate.

Yes, even worse than JD. :)

Not because he's a blowhard, because he isn't.

Not because he's a buffoon, because he isn't that either.

Not because he's lazy, because he's not.

Not because he's corrupt, even though there seems to be an interesting correlation between his votes in the Senate and the PAC money he receives as campaign contributions. He may or may not be dirty, but even if he is, he's not the worst in the Senate, or even in the AZ delegation.

He's the most dangerous because he has taken his lawyer's experience, intellect and knowledge of the law and diligently applied it to the task of ending the rule of Constitutional law in the United States, in favor of establishing an Imperial Presidency.

One shrouded in secrecy and above the laws that govern the behavior of the rest of us.

...Perhaps this is best illustrated by his unquestioning, and public, contempt for the President's critics, particularly those who question the legality of his actions.

Regarding the NSA Surveillance Terrorism Program:

"I would also note that, from the beginning, when this was exposed—unlawfully, I might add—the initial reaction was, “How dare the president do this?” It quickly transformed into, “Maybe the program isn’t legal.” (From a speech given in February at the Biltmore in Phoenix. Source: Frontpagemag.com.)

Followed by -

Other Republicans on the panel said the real danger was not the surveillance program, but the fact that it was publicized on the front page of one of America's most widely read newspapers.

"This is nuts," Senator Kyl, a Republican of Arizona, said. "We're in a war and we got to collect intelligence on the enemy, and you can't tell the enemy in advance how you're going to do it, and discussing all of this stuff in public leads to that." (source: New York Sun, May 12, 2006.)

It should be noted here that his distaste for dissent pre-dates the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Regarding some hearings on a bill to ease search warrant requirements for cyber-crime cases chaired by Kyl in 2000, from SFGate.com (April 5, 2000):

"But the real opposition to the Senate bill wasn't heard from because it wasn't invited to testify."

Oh, and he opposes any kind of a legal shield for reporters who publish leaked information about national security issues.

...Or perhaps it's illustrated by his unremitting legislative efforts to undermine the Constitution and the Supreme Court.

[Emphasis mine]

Specter introduces new compromise bill on NSA surveillance
Joshua Pantesco at 10:45 AM ET [June 9, 2006]

US Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced a new NSA oversight bill to the committee Thursday modifying his earlier proposal to require the NSA to seek FISC approval before conducting surveillance.

The new proposal, a compromise plan written with Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), has three major features:

in a major concession to the Bush administration, the bill cannot "be construed to limit the constitutional authority of the President to gather foreign intelligence information or monitor the activities and communications of any person reasonably believed to be associated with a foreign enemy of the United States;"

no official acting under presidential authority can be held criminally liable for conducting warrantless surveillance if the NSA warrantless surveillance program is eventually found
unconstitutional;

finally, the bill would consolidate the 29 cases before federal courts challenging the constitutionality of the NSA program, including the ACLU lawsuit against the big three phone companies, and would provide exclusive jurisdiction over the consolidated case to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Any FISC decision would be subject to Supreme Court review and would bind future federal court decisions. (Source: The Jurist, UPitt Law School)

[Isn't it ironic that someone who so stridently opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants just as stridently supports a clause (the one that starts "no official...") that essentially grants amnesty to administration officials for their illegal acts?]

Or, regarding the recently introduced (September 22, 2006) S. 3930 and S. 3929 (specifically, Title I, sec. 106):

"No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed on or behalf of an alien detained by the United States who (A) is currently in United States custody; and (B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy or is awaiting such determination." The provision goes on to say that "any other action" brought by a detainee would have to be brought in the D.C. Circuit Court, but that would be open to a narrower range of issues than a normal habeas petition. (Note that these provisions are not limited to detainees now at Guantanamo.) (Source: SCOTUSBlog, 24 September 2006)

Not only do these bills, strongly supported by Jon Kyl, try to remove rights accorded to all prisoners (habeas corpus), they seek to use statute to limit the Constitutional authority of the Supreme Court.

[This begs the question, and it's not a wiseass one - is it Constitutionally valid for Congress to pass a law that states that the Supreme Court cannot find that law to be unconstitutional?]

It's also not the first time that he has worked to undermine the USSC's authority.

In 2005, he introduced S.1046. It stated, in part, that "...no court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance..."

Of course, he has expressed his contempt for the Court, and the Constitution, in at least one other, significantly embarassing, way.

From the East Valley Tribune, July 7, 2006 -

Sen. Jon Kyl said Thursday he did not intend to deceive the U.S. Supreme Court by submitting a fabricated discussion into the Congressional Record.

He defended his actions, however, saying he and others have done it before. “Every senator has done it. It is no big deal to submit material for the record. It is done every day.”

Perhaps they do, but few have tried to deceive the Supreme Court about the debate on the Senate floor.

Even John Dean, a noted supporter of another President prone to abusing power, criticized him.

From Findlaw.com:

Senators Graham and Kyl not only misled their Senate colleagues, but also shamed their high offices by trying to deliberately mislead the U.S. Supreme Court. Their effort failed. I have not seen so blatant a ploy, or abuse of power, since Nixon's reign.

To be sure, Jon has been repaid handsomely for his loyalty to our emperor...err...'President."

From The Arizona Daily Wildcat (U of A), March 24, 2006:

...Vice President Dick Cheney was greeted as a rock star yesterday at a fundraiser for Sen. Jon Kyl.

The event drew 625 people to The Westin La Paloma Resort & Spa, who packed themselves into an outdoor tent, paying $500 per head to hear Cheney stump for Kyl.

The vice president intricately tied the administration's positions on the war in Iraq, tax cuts, judicial activism and the economy to Kyl's voting record.

"In Washington we could use more men like Jon Kyl," said Cheney. "His re-election is good for the country."

Don't know about how the "country" feels about it, but I'm sure it would be great for the Bush Administration.

And lousy for the Constitution.

Senator Kyl should be reminded of a couple of things that are VERY significant in his professional life. Or should be, anyway.

First, the oath that he took after his election to the U.S. Senate, from the Senate's website:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Second, from the Preamble of the ABA's Canons of Professional Ethics:

The continued existence of a free and democratic society depends upon recognition of the concept that justice is based upon the rule of law grounded in respect for the dignity of the individual and his capacity through reason for enlightened self-government. Law so grounded makes justice possible, for only through such law does the dignity of the individual attain respect and protection. Without it, individual rights become subject to unrestrained power, respect for law is destroyed, and rational self-government is impossible.

[Note: The ABA as an organization opposes the military commissions bills that Kyl supports.]

Obviously, Jon Kyl doesn't respect the Supreme Court.

Or the U.S. Constitution.

Or his oath of office.

Or even the professional ethics of his chosen pre-elected-office career, the practice of law.

Wonder if he will respect the choice of the voters in November if they select Jim Pederson to represent them?

The logic and reasoning in this post is way too dry and 'facts-oriented' for a punchy, 30-second TV spot, and it doesn't fit in well with the current "he said/he said" battle of press releases that is being conducted by the campaigns, but this is why Jon Kyl is dangerously unfit to represent Arizona, and that it's time to make a change.

By voting for Jim Pederson.