Last year, Congress and the president tucked a provision into the enormous defense budget bill that makes it easier for a president to override local law enforcement authorities and declare martial law. There was no public debate about this extension of executive power . . . part of a continuing effort by the administration to increase the president's authority without any oversight by Congress or dialogue with voters.

I confess to being surprised by learning of this. I am alarmed. I hope you are, too.

Here's your opportunity for voter action! A new bill introduced in the U. S. Senate on February 7 by Sen. Patrick Leahy, S. 513, would reverse the actions of Congress and the president, and revive the previous authority on the use of the armed forces and militia to address interference with state or federal law. S. 513 has the unanimous approval of the country's governors. Let your senators know how you feel about this.

A little background
Since just after the Civil War, the doctrine of posse comitatus has banned military forces from engaging in law enforcement. The other measure that helps assure protection of citizens from the military is the Insurrection Act of 1807 which provides major exemptions to posse comitatus -- the president may use the military to put down lawlessness, insurrection, and rebellion where a state is violating federal law or depriving people of constitutional rights.

Add to this our new penchant for using a standing army to impose martial law and the fact that the administration created the Northern Command to oversee the land, sea, and air defense of the United States, Mexico, and Canada in 2002.

For the final measure of our booming militarism, consider the military budget which, according to the administration's own figures, has increased 35 percent since 2001!

UUSC strongly endorses Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd's bill to provide for the effective prosecution of terrorists and guarantee due process rights. S. 576 , introduced on February 13, 2007 is a response to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which:

* Allows the president alone to decide who is and who is not an enemy of the United States.
* Eliminates the Constitution’s due process right of habeas corpus for people the president decides are enemies, and permits the government to keep hundreds of detainees imprisoned indefinitely without any charge.
* Lets the president define torture and abuse, instead of adhering to existing law and the Geneva Conventions.
* Removes accountability for top government officials.

A presidential initiative to expand executive authority and a compliant Republican Congress delivered the Military Commissions Act of 2006 last October. Many of us saw this new law as yet another infringement on civil liberties and a continuation of efforts to avoid responsibility for torture/abuse clearly stated in existing domestic and international law and the Geneva Conventions. While we call the United States a nation of laws, the administration reserves its alleged right to be the sole "decider" as to which laws to obey.

S. 576 is the opening salvo in what will become an ongoing dialogue to determine the responsibility of the administration to protect civil liberties, to obey the law and the Constitution, and to respect the Geneva Conventions.

For the complete text of Sen. Dodd's bill, visit this very helpful site. (In addition to finding bills and laws by name or number, one can e-mail senators and representatives, discover what's happening in committees, find the congressional calendar, and more!)

Stay tuned for more information about congressional action on the protection of civil liberties and the Constitution, torture/abuse, extraordinary rendition, and the Geneva Conventions.

It seems entirely appropriate that the House Education and Labor Committee consider the Employees Free Choice Act on Valentine's Day. This valentine for U.S. workers, H.R. 800, would establish a system that would enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations and allow mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts.

Why do workers need H.R. 800?

Because the struggle for workers' rights continues -- even today. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights expressly addresses human rights in the work place. It specifically articulates the idea that workers have the right to form and join a trade union. Around the world and here in the United States this human right is under attack.

H.R. 800, the Employees Free Choice Act, is sponsored by Rep. George Miller of California and has 233 co-sponsors. (Party representation in the House is 233 Democrats and 202 Republicans.) I hope the Education and Labor Committee sends H.R. 800 to the House floor for a positive vote! Then, it's on to the Senate, where the political party representation (49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, one Independent Democrat and one Independent), Senate rules, and Senate traditions may slow the progress of this bill. We are forewarned and so, prepared to urge senators' positive action on this proposed law.

Background of labor movement history in the United States
A visit to this next site reminds us that the great struggle by U.S. workers to improve their lot began very early in our history.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, primitive unions and guilds were early attempts to secure improved working conditions. By the middle of of the 19th century, the Nation Labor Union was created, followed by the Knights of Labor in 1869. The 1894 Pullman Strike, though, focused in sharp relief the muscle used by corporations with government to break strikes using moral authority, military force, and compliant judges.

In 1902, the United Mine Workers strike idled more than 100,000 workers. President Theodore Roosevelt intervened and appointed a commission of mediation and arbitration. Five days later, the miners returned to their jobs and, five months later, the presidential commission awarded them a 10 percent wage increase and shorter work days.

Do workers benefit when they join a union?
According to UNITE HERE!, the union that represents UUSC staff members, union workers earn better wages, have better pensions, health care, and disability plans. View more information compiled by UNITE HERE!

Support an increase in the federal minimum wage? Of course!

The impact of approving November's six state ballot measures to increase state minimum wages and index them to inflation is powerful evidence of an overwhelming intention by American voters for fair wages. These minimum wage measures are amongst the first in U.S. history to be indexed to inflation.

Business owners in every state in the United States are calling for an increase in the federal minimum wage! Business Owners and Executives for a Higher Minimum Wage is a project of Business for Shared Prosperity in partnership with the Let Justice Roll campaign to raise the minimum wage. Business for Shared Prosperity is a new network, in formation, of forward-thinking business owners, executives, and investors committed to building enduring economic progress on a strong foundation of opportunity, equity, and innovation.

Jim Sinegal, CEO of Costco, the nation's largest wholesale club operator, has signed the statement in support of raising the minimum wage. Sinegal said, "The increase in the minimum wage is long overdue. I hope Congress and the president will move swiftly to enact sensible legislation that will demonstrate our nation's commitment to reward hard work."

Our success to date is the result of hard-working activists who now need a little more patience and work before we celebrate total victory. The Senate is still talking about raising the federal minimum wage. In democratic societies, voters may take the lead when those elected fail. So leaders, join the final moments of the effort and urge your senator vote a clean Senate bill to raise the federal minimum wage -- NOW!.

"Shadow reports." Sounds intriguing. Mysterious. And perhaps they once were. But more and more shadow reports are being filed with U.N. committees to report human rights violations states' reports have 'overlooked.' And U.N. committees are listening!

Shadow reports help committees formulate questions to signatory states about the implementation of U.N. conventions. Or such reports may prompt the committee to request additional follow-up reporting, as you will read below.

On Sunday, December 10, 2006, UUSC co-sponsored the symposium "Human Rights: Tools for Change in Massachusetts" to celebrate Human Rights Day by sharing the secrets of filing shadow reports to the United Nations and working with U.N. rapporteurs or specialists on implementation of the human rights covenants.

"In the Shadows of the War on Terror: Persistent Police Brutality and Abuse," a collaborative effort by over 140 U.S.-based nongovernmental organizations, was filed with the U.N.'s Human Rights Committee in July 2006 as part of the committee's quadrennial review of the status of human rights in signatory states to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The report documents human rights abuses in the United States relative to law enforcement, immigration, Hurricane Katrina, and juvenile justice.

Following the filing of "In the Shadows of the War on Terror," the U. N. Human Rights Committee has requested additional reporting by Fall 2007 from the United States about Hurricane Katrina activities, according to Tonya McClary, National Criminal Justice Director for the American Friends Service Committee and one the major speakers at Sunday's symposium.

"Report on Failure of Compliance with Article 20 Prohibiting Propaganda for War," another shadow report, was prepared for the U.N. Human Rights Committee by the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) and other NGOs. WILPF's Gillian Gilhool, an eloquent symposium speaker and workshop leader, traced the history of shadow reports back to 1993, noting the increase in their use since that time.

But beyond listening to inspiring and informative speakers, the audience of activists had opportunities to meet and work with McClary, Gilhool, and Professor Martha Davis of Northeastern School of Law to explore the options for reporting human rights abuses through shadow reports and dialogues with special rapporteurs.

There appear to be two secrets for success in this work: document everything and begin very early because creating such a report is a formidable task. The reports are very formal and require extensive attention to detail. Eyewitness testimony is very helpful in documentation. The reports are filed in person in Geneva. In Spring 2007, signatory states to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination will file reports. The committee will receive reports from states and most likely shadow reports from NGOs.

It was a highly suitable observance of Human Rights Day 2006: education, inspiration, and good old fashioned know-how to advance the practice of human rights.

"The future depends on what we do in the present." --Mohandas K. Gandhi

John Bolton has resigned his temporary position as U. S. ambassador to the United Nations. "After careful consideration, I have concluded that my service in your administration should end when the current recess appoint expires," Mr. Bolton wrote, according to an article by the Associated Press.

From time to time, the voters in our democracy see elected leadership leading less and instead pursuing it own unacceptable paths. On November 7, 2006, voters became the leadership and spoke directly to every elected official reminding each that ultimate authority rests with the electorate. In a moment that was empowering and inspiring, the essence of democracy determined the outcome and cleared paths for its yet-to-be-known consequences -- one of which is this resignation.

For those who voted on November 7 and advocated relative to this nomination for U. N. ambassador, it's a reality-check moment. Yes, democracy still lives here. Phew! The people spoke, the administration and John Bolton read the tea leaves and found Mr. Bolton did not have the votes. Of course the hard part of democracy is that we need to be just as vigilant in the years ahead for "Democracy is not a spectator sport," as the League of Women Voters reminds us. And they're right.

So when a new U.N. nomination comes forth, we will be ready! Success satisfies and will make us more active creating a greater UUSC voice in public policy.

On November 10, 2006, President Bush called for Senate confirmation of John Bolton as permanent representative to the United Nations. Send your senators a message to vote "No" on Mr. Bolton's nomination now.

Yes, he's back. The president nominated Mr. Bolton as U.N. ambassador and without any Senate action, made an appointment on August 1, 2005, the first day of the congressional recess. Now the Senate must confirm that nomination before the new 110th Congress convenes in January 2007. Without Senate confirmation, the nomination expires.

Over the weekend Sen. Joseph Biden, likely to become chair for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which held hearings on this nominee in 2005, called on the president to send a new nomination to the committee.

And Sen. Lincoln Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island and fellow committee member defeated in last week's election, announced he will continue to oppose Mr. Bolton's nomination. He said, "To confirm Mr. Bolton to the position of U. N ambassador would fly in the face of the clear consensus of the country that a new direction is called for."

With ten Republican and eight Democratic members the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at present would vote a tie: nine in favor and nine opposed -- effectively a "No" vote.