FrankRep
03-21-2008, 01:24 PM
House of Representatives Meets in Rare Secret Session
The John Birch Society (http://www.JBS.org/)
March 21, 2008
ARTICLE SYNOPSIS:
Last Thursday, the House of Representatives of the United States met in secret session for only the fourth time since 1830. What was the important information that had to be kept from the public?
Follow this link to the original source: "House proceedings held in secret session (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=h1699&dbname=2008_record)"
COMMENTARY:
Republic — from Latin respublica, from res thing, + publica, public — the "people's things"
Unfortunately, even in a Republic sometimes the people's things are kept from them. Last Thursday, members of our House of Representatives yielded to Congressman Blunt (http://capwiz.com/jbs/bio/?id=357&lvl=C&chamber=H) of Missouri who invoked a call to hold a secret session of the House for only the fourth time since 1830. Mr. Blunt's stated purpose was to share with other members of the House certain urgent information he possessed related to suggested revisions to federal surveillance laws on telecommunications — the FISA bill (http://www.capwiz.com/jbs/issues/alert/?alertid=11025236). He argued (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=h1698&dbname=2008_record) that, "Many of the Members have not seen this. It is information that I think would be helpful."
Apparently, certain information is too sensitive to share with common citizens as to why our unalienable rights, protected by the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, must be trampled over by advocates of warrantless wire tapping programs (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/14/house.fisa.vote/).
To his credit, Congressman Scott (http://capwiz.com/jbs/bio/?id=2575&lvl=C&chamber=H) of Georgia objected to Mr. Blunt's attempt to exercise his prerogative of calling for a secret session. Scott warned (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=h1698&dbname=2008_record), "This is a precious country, the centerpiece of which is openness, and if we keep tipping away at this, we undermine the very fabric of our country. And I just submit to you, Mr. Leader, this is really what's at stake tonight."
However, with Blunt persisting and no other member of the House raising further objections, Scott eventually yielded to Blunt's call. The House broke into recess allowing for the clearing of any recording or listening devices. During this time, in addition to the provisions of clause 13 of House Rule XXIII (http://www.house.gov/ethics/Rule23.htm), Members were required, as noted in the Congressional Record (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=h1699&dbname=2008_record), to sign their "oaths of secrecy" in the "Speaker's Ceremonial Office." (Honestly, how many ceremonial oaths of secrecy does it take these days to be a member of Congress in good standing? It must get confusing.)
The various requirements having been met, on March 13, 2008 — from 10:11pm to 11:09 pm — the House of Representatives of the United States met in secret session for only the fourth time in 178 years.
Per current publicly acknowledged House rules, the recorded proceedings of this secret session will be maintained in the National Archives beyond the access of the public for the next 30 years. At that time, the House will have the option to release the records to the public or order their further suppression.
All we know at this point is that whatever information Mr. Blunt provided it did not immediately convince Democrats (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/14/house.fisa.vote/) to cave into the current adminstration's request to further codify its trashing of our unalienable right against unreasonable searches. As for speculation (http://www.dailypaul.com/node/42730) as to what really happened, in all sincerity, how much of true import can Congress cover in less than an hour of pontification? That would have been barely enough time to pass on the hint that your major donors need to immeditately dump their Bear Stearns stock (http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/mar2008/pi20080314_527020.htm?campaign_id=rss_null) as soon as the markets open 11 hours later.
Fortuitously, in 2009 we will be able to test of the sincerity of the House in eventually making their secret proceedings public. That's when the 30 years runs out on the first secret session of the House since 1830 — the June 20th, 1979 session. That was the secret session to discuss the implementing legislation for giving away of the Panama Canal.
Note: In 2004, the Congressional Research Service issued an informative brief history of secret sessions in Congress (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RS20145.pdf). In light of current furtive initiatives (http://www.jbs.org/node/2516) under the executive branch, the stated purpose of the 1830 secret session is worth a chuckle: "To receive a confidential message from the President on a bill regulating trade between the U.S. and Great Britain."
SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/node/7542
.
The John Birch Society (http://www.JBS.org/)
March 21, 2008
ARTICLE SYNOPSIS:
Last Thursday, the House of Representatives of the United States met in secret session for only the fourth time since 1830. What was the important information that had to be kept from the public?
Follow this link to the original source: "House proceedings held in secret session (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=h1699&dbname=2008_record)"
COMMENTARY:
Republic — from Latin respublica, from res thing, + publica, public — the "people's things"
Unfortunately, even in a Republic sometimes the people's things are kept from them. Last Thursday, members of our House of Representatives yielded to Congressman Blunt (http://capwiz.com/jbs/bio/?id=357&lvl=C&chamber=H) of Missouri who invoked a call to hold a secret session of the House for only the fourth time since 1830. Mr. Blunt's stated purpose was to share with other members of the House certain urgent information he possessed related to suggested revisions to federal surveillance laws on telecommunications — the FISA bill (http://www.capwiz.com/jbs/issues/alert/?alertid=11025236). He argued (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=h1698&dbname=2008_record) that, "Many of the Members have not seen this. It is information that I think would be helpful."
Apparently, certain information is too sensitive to share with common citizens as to why our unalienable rights, protected by the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, must be trampled over by advocates of warrantless wire tapping programs (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/14/house.fisa.vote/).
To his credit, Congressman Scott (http://capwiz.com/jbs/bio/?id=2575&lvl=C&chamber=H) of Georgia objected to Mr. Blunt's attempt to exercise his prerogative of calling for a secret session. Scott warned (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=h1698&dbname=2008_record), "This is a precious country, the centerpiece of which is openness, and if we keep tipping away at this, we undermine the very fabric of our country. And I just submit to you, Mr. Leader, this is really what's at stake tonight."
However, with Blunt persisting and no other member of the House raising further objections, Scott eventually yielded to Blunt's call. The House broke into recess allowing for the clearing of any recording or listening devices. During this time, in addition to the provisions of clause 13 of House Rule XXIII (http://www.house.gov/ethics/Rule23.htm), Members were required, as noted in the Congressional Record (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=h1699&dbname=2008_record), to sign their "oaths of secrecy" in the "Speaker's Ceremonial Office." (Honestly, how many ceremonial oaths of secrecy does it take these days to be a member of Congress in good standing? It must get confusing.)
The various requirements having been met, on March 13, 2008 — from 10:11pm to 11:09 pm — the House of Representatives of the United States met in secret session for only the fourth time in 178 years.
Per current publicly acknowledged House rules, the recorded proceedings of this secret session will be maintained in the National Archives beyond the access of the public for the next 30 years. At that time, the House will have the option to release the records to the public or order their further suppression.
All we know at this point is that whatever information Mr. Blunt provided it did not immediately convince Democrats (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/14/house.fisa.vote/) to cave into the current adminstration's request to further codify its trashing of our unalienable right against unreasonable searches. As for speculation (http://www.dailypaul.com/node/42730) as to what really happened, in all sincerity, how much of true import can Congress cover in less than an hour of pontification? That would have been barely enough time to pass on the hint that your major donors need to immeditately dump their Bear Stearns stock (http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/mar2008/pi20080314_527020.htm?campaign_id=rss_null) as soon as the markets open 11 hours later.
Fortuitously, in 2009 we will be able to test of the sincerity of the House in eventually making their secret proceedings public. That's when the 30 years runs out on the first secret session of the House since 1830 — the June 20th, 1979 session. That was the secret session to discuss the implementing legislation for giving away of the Panama Canal.
Note: In 2004, the Congressional Research Service issued an informative brief history of secret sessions in Congress (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RS20145.pdf). In light of current furtive initiatives (http://www.jbs.org/node/2516) under the executive branch, the stated purpose of the 1830 secret session is worth a chuckle: "To receive a confidential message from the President on a bill regulating trade between the U.S. and Great Britain."
SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/node/7542
.