How even this weak Congress can challenge presidential abuse

Originally published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

When government abuses its power, the American people must be heard. This was the lesson of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s: Bull Connor’s dogs in Birmingham and the brutality of state troopers in Selma awakened the conscience of average Americans, prompting Congress to act.

Today, however, Congress is only a vestigial remnant of what it was in the 1960’s and certainly of what our founders created it to be. So here is a humble proposal for how at least a few members could create a foothold of bipartisanship in Congress and simultaneously channel and stir the conscience of the American people.

I propose the formation of a new caucus, dedicated to opposing abuses of executive power wherever and whenever they occur. This caucus would be modeled on existing caucuses — such as the Congressional Cancer Caucus and the Bipartisan Disabilities Caucus — in which members of both parties come together to address issues vital to their constituents.

Well before the recent killings in Minneapolis, politicians of both parties have called out the weaponization of government against the other. Weaponization can be defined as abuse by government agencies, such as the Department of Justice, the FBI and the IRS, to punish political opponents.

In recent months, Democrats have accused the Trump administration of weaponizing the DOJ against former FBI director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. In past years, Republicans — including House Judiciary Committee chair Jim Jordan and Sen. Ted Cruz — accused the DOJ and FBI of weaponization against Republicans.

We have reached the point where the parties each call out claimed offenses by the other — but reflexively reject the possibility of any wrongdoing by their own.

Can we not agree that weaponization of government against opponents is always wrong no matter what party controls the executive branch? It is precisely the kind of abuse the framers of our Constitution sought to prevent when they created our now largely defunct Congress before parties as we know them existed.

My proposal is that the caucus consist of self-appointed members of Congress from both parties who are concerned about abuses of governmental power. If its work were assigned to an existing committee or to one appointed by party leadership, it would immediately devolve into the partisan morass with each side seizing the opportunity to relitigate past grievances and exchange competing claims. Rather than convene meaningful hearings, committee leaders would create a stage for more performative grandstanding.

Of course, there is the possibility that partisanship could engulf even the caucus I propose; in that case, we would be no worse off than we already are. But the premise for joining this caucus would be a commitment to calling out the abuse of power no matter its source. And I believe there are at least a few members of Congress from both sides of the aisle who would make that commitment.

The caucus could hold hearings in which historians would compare and contrast current situations with examples from our past. It could invite legal scholars to explain constitutional protections against presidential abuses of power. Even if the caucus only succeeded in focusing public attention on the subject in this manner, it would perform a great service.

The work of such a caucus would not necessarily be to suggest legislation. Indeed, as a practical matter, it would be challenging to devise legislation that doesn’t impinge on the responsibility of government to pursue law enforcement where there is cause to do so.

But the ultimate guardian against abuse of governmental power never has been whatever is written into a statute; it is the vigilance of the American people and their expression of outrage against abuse whatever its source.

The framers of our Constitution brilliantly addressed the dual challenge of creating a government strong enough to serve the common good and controlled enough to not threaten our liberties. Its plan for meeting this challenge was a system of checks and balances in which a bicameral Congress would make and the president would execute public policy. With Congress content with its now insignificant legislative role, that carefully balanced system has broken down, and the current president has assumed unchecked power.

But concerned members of Congress can put to constructive use what Congress has become adept at doing — i.e., drawing media, and therefore public attention, to subjects of national concern.

Today, the abuse of governmental power is clearly a subject of national concern. The remedy against it is the expression of outrage by the American people. A caucus of concerned members of Congress could put the spotlight on that subject. It could help stir and focus the outrage of this country’s ultimate decision-makers — the people.

(Photo credit: Jeff Roberson/AP)