(Page 12 of 41) - War Makes the State, but Not As It Pleases: Homeland Security and American Anti-Statism authored by Kroenig, Matthew.

imposed homeland security initiatives.

Members of Congress in both parties openly

questioned the wisdom of extending provisions of the PATRIOT Act.

The pressure

from other branches of government became so intense that both the President and the
Attorney General felt compelled to mount a public defense of the law.

In December

2005, the Senate stalled on an indefinite renewal of the Patriot Act arguing that the law
needed more protections against potential civil liberties abuses.

At the time of writing

in January 2006, Congress had yet to work out a compromise that would prevent the
PATRIOT Act from expiring.

Despite resistance to the law’s renewal, the PATRIOT Act was initially enacted in full
and represents the study’s only case of an expected increase in state power.

RESTRAINED PROPOSALS

In four other cases, early initiatives to increase state power faced substantial resistance
and were significantly scaled back.

Department of Homeland Security. The creation of DHS, the largest reordering of the
federal government since the National Security Act of 1947, would seem to be an easy
case for the war makes the state school. However, the creation of DHS actually
constrained executive ambition by moving the responsibility for coordinating homeland
security from the White House and placing it under Congressional scrutiny.

The President did not initially seek congressional authorization for the creation of the
new office of homeland security (OHS), not an unheard of maneuver in the history of
executive-legislative relations. However, he subsequently refused to let his OHS
director, former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge, testify before Congress on the
administration’s homeland security plans, a refusal that significantly heightened
institutional tensions between Congress and the White House.

As an advisor to the

President, Ridge was not subject to congressional approval and could not be compelled to
testify in Congress. Moreover, since OHS was located in the Executive Office of the
President, Congress had no oversight powers over the new office.

Only three days after the creation of OHS, Sens. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Arlen
Specter (R-Pa.) introduced legislation to establish a Cabinet-level department of
homeland security.

Ridge initially recommended that President Bush veto any

legislation creating an office with congressional oversight arguing that the President is

For instance, see John Cristofferson, “Judge Rules against Government in Patriot Act Case,” Associated

Press, 9 September 2005.

Dan Eggen, “Congress Urged to Renew Patriot Act: Minor Changes would Address Concerns Gonzales

and Mueller Tell Senate Panel,” Washington Post, 6 April 2005, A17.

“Ashcroft Kicks Off Campaign to Defend Patriot Act.” CNN.COM 19 August 2003. Michael Fletcher.

“President Calls on Congress to Extend Patriot Act Provisions,” Washington Post, 21 July 2005. A06.

E.J. Dionne Jr., “Their Own Patriot Act,” Washington Post, 20 December 2005, A31.

Alison Mitchell, “Letter to Ridge is Latest Jab in Fight over Balance of Powers,” New York Times, 5

March 2002, A8.

The Department of National Homeland Security Bill of 2001. S. 1534, 11 October 2001.