Congressional ire.

Byline: The Register-Guard

There's something sadly amusing about Congress threatening a constitutional showdown over the FBI's all-night search of a lawmaker's office.

It isn't that the Bush administration shouldn't be held accountable for breaching constitutional provisions intended to protect lawmakers from intimidation by the executive branch. It should - and the sooner the better. But there is rich irony in seeing lawmakers protesting intrusions by an administration that for six years has treated Congress as a subservient institution and claimed unrestrained authority under the Constitution. Raiding a lawmaker's office on Capitol Hill is neither the first nor the worst show of executive highhandedness.

Where, pray tell, was Congress' outrage and determination to defend the Constitution when the Bush administration:

Assumed unilateral executive authority over any and all questions of war and peace, and brazenly manipulated intelligence reports to justify its prior decision to invade Iraq?

Declared that the president has the power to ignore federal statutes and international treaties governing the treatment of enemy prisoners?

Assumed the power to designate American citizens as "enemy combatants" and lock them up without charges or any semblance of due process for the duration of an amorphous "war on terror" that has no end in sight?

Claimed that the president has the inherent power as commander in chief to order the secret surveillance of the international e-mail and telephone conversations of U.S. citizens - and to obtain their phone re- cords to create vast databanks?

Issued more than 750 presidential signing statements, far more than any other chief executive in history, reserving the right to interpret new laws on his own terms? Examples include a congressional ban on torture of prisoners, a prohibition on the military keeping illegally gathered intelligence on American citizens, and a requirement that the Justice Department keep Congress informed on how the Patriot Act is being used to search the private homes of citizens.

In fairness, some lawmakers have complained about executive branch's expansive view of its authority, and a few have even threatened to resist the administration's intrusions. Both Republicans and Democrats rumbled and thundered after the warrantless surveillance came to light, but in the end there were no independent investigations, no subpoenas, no constitutional challenges in the Supreme Court.

Now, congressional leaders are protesting the FBI's Capitol Hill raid on the office of Rep. William Jeffer- son, a Louisiana Democrat who is accused of accepting bribes. Granted, the constitutional principles involved are serious and legitimate, but surely they rank relatively low on the lengthy list of Bush's assertions of executive power.

In 2001 and again last year, Bush stood at the west face of the Capitol, put his right hand on a Bible and took this oath: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Bush has interpreted that oath to his advantage, at Congress' expense. Time and again, he has read the Constitution as a writ to undermine civil liberties and upset the balance of power among the separate branches of government.

Until now, Congress has chosen to stand limply on the sidelines.