Progressive Action Score: 0A score of 0 means that Rep. Oxley has acted to support 0% of a slate of progressive policies in the 109th Congress.
By our reckoning, Representative Oxley has done nothing to merit classification as a progressive. An accounting of Rep. Oxley's failings as a leader of reason include the following:- Rep. Oxley failed to vote "no" on the Tyranny Act, H.R. 6166. Rep. Oxley swore a solemn oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. That oath was violated when Rep Oxley failed to oppose H.R. 6166, which is a direct attack upon the Constitution, and through its attack upon the Constitution an attack upon the freedom of every American and every person living under American jurisdiction.
Passed into law, the Tyranny Act installs undemocratic executive committees without review to designate citizens and noncitizens alike as enemy combatants without standards for proof. It grants George W. Bush amnesty for his current violations of law. It allows the thoroughly untrustworthy George W. Bush supreme authority to decide whether an interrogation technique qualifies as torture. It allows hearsay evidence to be used to convict an accused person. It permits indefinite detention without review.
All of these provisions in the bill are unconstitutional. That makes this bill unAmerican. And Representative Oxley betrayed the dream of America by allowing this bill to pass into law without a vote of opposition. It bears saying again: Rep. Oxley has betrayed the dream of America.
- The Patriot Act is a betrayal of the great American tradition of liberty because it encourages the government to spy on the legal, personal activities of Americans who have not broken the law and for whom there is no demonstrated probable cause to suspect criminal activity. Specifically, the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which promises that Americans shall not be subject to search and seizure of their persons or their papers without probable cause. The Bush Administration is using that power to grab information out of commercial and public databases and assemble them into a single giant computer database through which the private affairs of every American citizen can be tracked by government officials. Rep. Oxley failed to vote against the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, empowering the Bush administration to continue to dismantle American liberties and erect a Big Brother edifice in their place.
- By voting for the Hostettler Amendment to H.R. 2862, Rep. Oxley voted to keep a ruling of a federal court from being enforced. Why? Because a judge decided that a religious monument on the grounds of the Gibson county courthouse was an unconstitutional endorsement of one religion over others. Rep. Oxley has apparently decided that any personally distasteful court ruling can be overturned, just because. That's not the rule of law. That's an arbitrary violation of the separation of powers. And, in this case, it allows pushy and vocal religious groups to shove their beliefs down everybody else's throats. That's not just wrong, it is downright unAmerican.
- By voting "no" on the Scott Amendment, Rep. Oxley voted to keep language in H.R. 27 that allows organizations to engage in government-funded religious discrimination in hiring. We had thought that bigotry was old hat, and that the separation of church and state was secure. With this vote, Rep. Oxley has helped to weaken the constitution and bring bigotry back in style.
- To members of Congress, talk of patriotism comes easy. But what about action to preserve what is great about America? What about protecting the symbol of America, the bald eagle itself? On September 29, 2005, a slim majority of member of the United States House of Representatives voted for H.R. 3824, an attack upon the landmark law that brought the American bald eagle back from the brink of extinction. Without the Endangered Species Act, the American bald eagle would probably not exist any more, except on the backs of our quarters and as a graphic on Republican web sites promoting corporate pollution.
We've seen the American bald eagle fly, and we think that it is worth protecting. 229 members of the House of Representatives disagreed. They voted to seriously weaken the protection of endangered species like the American bald eagle. They did it for the sake of profits for big business. A NO vote would have represented a courageous stand for the Endangered Species Act. In a telling betrayal, Representative Oxley failed to vote NO. For shame.
- Rep. Oxley has not yet cosponsored H.R. 2412, which would provide more information to the public about contacts between lobbyists and politicians, and which would slow down the revolving door of politics in which politicians move into cushy corporate jobs after they retire in exchange for favors. What is Representative Oxley's problem with ethics?
- Rep. Oxley has not yet cosponsored H.R. 40, which would acknowledge the injustices of slavery and racial discrimination and establish a commission to study them.
- Rep Oxley has not yet cosponsored H.R. 63, which would make Election Day a federal holiday to make it easier to get out and vote.
- Rep Oxley has not yet cosponsored H.R. 759, which would reduce greenhouse-gas emissions through market-based systems.
- Rep. Oxley has not yet cosponsored H.R. 550, which would sensibly require the establishment of a backup paper record of votes for those times when electronic voting machines fail. Why is Rep. Oxley unwilling to protect the bedrock of democracy, Americans' faith that every vote counts?
- Rep. Oxley has not yet cosponsored H.R. 952, which would put an end to the practice of "extraordinary rendition," in which Bush Administration officials send people into the custody of certain nations, knowing full well (some would say intending) that they will be tortured there. Extraordinary rendition is another stain on the moral clarity of the United States. It is a horrible irony that in a "War on Terror," the United States government would enable the use of terror as a tool. Why is Rep. Oxley unwilling to stand against American complicity in the use of torture?
- Michael Oxley has not yet cosponsored H.R. 1157, which would keep government agents from riffling through your bookstore receipts and library records without your permission or knowledge. Why is Rep. Oxley standing against privacy, against individual liberty, and with Big Brother? That's not a rhetorical question.
- Michael Oxley has not yet cosponsored H.R. 1440, which would keep members of the Federal Communication Commission from using their appointed positions to censor cable, satellite or internet programs they consider to be indecent. These "narrowcast" programs are accessed only by those who specifically request them, so why should the government make it their business to keep people from seeing what they want to see? Why has Rep Oxley not yet lent support to this sensible, freedom-defending bill?
- We may think we live in modern times, but the U.S. Constitution still does not guarantee that individual rights shall apply equally to men and women. Without such a constitutional guarantee, all it could take is a rogue judge or an emboldened conservative Congress to take women's rights away by a simple majority vote. On the other hand, this nation is still encumbered with unfair legal notions that, all other things being equal, give mothers custody advantages over fathers. The current state of unequal protection is unfair to both women and men, and devalues our common underlying humanity.
Michael Oxley has not yet cosponsored H.J. Res 37, which would amend the United States Constitution to simply state the following: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification." It's simple, it's obvious, and it's about time something was done to enshrine this principle in the Constitution for men and women alike. When will Rep. Oxley take this important stand for equality?
- Rep. Oxley has not yet cosponsored H.R. 567, which would preserve and protect the pristine coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from short-sighted, unnecessary development.
Contact Rep Oxley by E-mail, Phone (at 202-225-2676), or Fax (at 202-226-0577), and ask when these progressive policy priorities will merit support.
| | Regressive Conservative Score: 54A score of 54 means that Rep. Oxley has acted to support 54% of a slate of conservative, wrongheaded policies in the 109th Congress.
Regressive, destructive, and downright unAmerican actions Rep. Oxley has taken that contribute to a RCS of 54:
Rep. Oxley voted YES on the Tyranny Act, H.R. 6166. Rep. Oxley swore a solemn oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. That oath was violated when Rep Oxley voted for H.R. 6166, a bill that makes a direct attack upon the Constitution, and through its attack upon the Constitution makes an attack upon the freedom of every American and every person living under American jurisdiction.
Passed into law, the Tyranny Act installs undemocratic executive committees without review to designate citizens and noncitizens alike as enemy combatants without standards for proof. It grants George W. Bush amnesty for his current violations of law. It allows the thoroughly untrustworthy George W. Bush supreme authority to decide whether an interrogation technique qualifies as torture. It allows hearsay evidence to be used to convict an accused person. It permits indefinite detention without review.
All of these provisions in the bill are unconstitutional. That makes this bill unAmerican. And Representative Oxley betrayed the dream of America by helping to push this bill into law. It bears saying again: Rep. Oxley has betrayed the dream of America.
The Patriot Act is a betrayal of the great American tradition of liberty because it encourages the government to spy on the legal, personal activities of Americans who have not broken the law. The Bush Administration is using that power to grab information out of commercial and public databases and assemble them into a single giant computer database through which the private affairs of every American citizen can be tracked by government officials. Unfortunately for the Amercan tradition of liberty, the Patriot Act reauthorization passed, with Rep. Oxley casting a craven YES vote.
To members of Congress, talk of patriotism comes easy. But what about action to preserve what is great about America? What about protecting the symbol of America, the bald eagle itself? On September 29, 2005, a slim majority of member of the United States House of Representatives voted for H.R. 3824, an attack upon the landmark law that brought the American bald eagle back from the brink of extinction. Without the Endangered Species Act, the American bald eagle would probably not exist any more, except on the backs of our quarters and as a graphic on Republican web sites promoting corporate pollution.
We've seen the American bald eagle fly, and we think that it is worth protecting. 229 members of the House of Representatives disagreed. They voted to seriously weaken the protection of endangered species like the American bald eagle. They did it for the sake of profits for big business. A NO vote would have represented a courageous stand for the Endangered Species Act. In a telling betrayal, Representative Oxley voted YES for the gutting of the Endangered Species Act. For shame.
Representative Michael Oxley has decided to support H.R. 997, a bill that would declare English to be the official language of the United States, would mandate that official government business be conducted in English only, and presumptively declare that workplaces in the private sector follow these rules too. Look, just because Rep. Oxley seems to have some kind of personal problem with brown-skinned "ethnic" people who speak a different language than English doesn't mean that such prejudice should be pushed on the rest of the country. The United States of America has always been a nation of multiple origins, multiple cultures and multiple languages. Legislating diversity away will not make it disappear. On the contrary, this legislation will only divide the nation into a privileged English-speaking clique and an untouchable caste of non-English speakers who are denied access to government, to civic participation, and even to the private workplace. This is not what America stands for. Shame on you, Michael Oxley, for demeaning the standard of openness that has made this country great.
By voting for the Hostettler Amendment to H.R. 2862, Rep. Oxley voted to keep a ruling of a federal court from being enforced. Why? Because a judge decided that a religious monument on the grounds of the Gibson county courthouse was an unconstitutional endorsement of one religion over others. Rep. Oxley has apparently decided that any personally distasteful court ruling can be overturned, just because. That's not the rule of law. That's an arbitrary violation of the separation of powers. And, in this case, it allows pushy and vocal religious groups to shove their beliefs down everybody else's throats. That's not just wrong, it is downright unAmerican.
By voting "no" on the Scott Amendment, Rep. Oxley voted to keep language in H.R. 27 that allows organizations to engage in government-funded religious discrimination in hiring. We had thought that bigotry was old hat, and that the separation of church and state was secure. With this vote, Rep. Oxley has helped to weaken the constitution and bring bigotry back in style.
One of the more purely nationalist pieces of legislation to enter the U.S. Congress so far this year is House Joint Resolution 10, which would amend the United States Constitution so that "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."
The amendment would transform the American flag from a symbol of liberty into a nationalist idol to be worshipped in the cult of the Homeland. Just consider the language used in the amendment. The amendment proposes to prohibit the "physical desecration" of the American flag. Let's be clear: to desecrate something means to demean its sacred status.
Sacred status? Sacred? In traditional American democracy, the American flag is not sacred. There is no official cult of flag worship. Flag worshipping cults, like the Boy Scouts, have been private organizations. However, this amendment would elevate a physical object, the American flag, into a special religious realm of untouchability and spiritual transcendence. The amendment would insert the notion of sacred idols into the United States Constitution for the first time.
In supporting House Joint Resolution 10, Representative Oxley stands against good sense and with the nationalist mob. We need fewer, not more, demagogues like Oxley in the Congress.
|
