The Patriot Act was renewed yesterday, this time without the sunset provision, despite a valiant attempt to keep it, from people like Dana Rohrabacher. He made the argument for it eloquently:

Rohrabacher said he supported the Patriot Act in 2001 because of the threat faced by the country after 9/11, but only under the belief that once the emergency was over, “the government would again return to a level consistent with a free society.”

“We should not be required to live in peacetime under the extraordinary laws that were passed during times of war and crisis. Emergency powers of investigation should not become the standard once the crisis has passed,” he said, drawing applause from his colleagues.

Exactly. And of course, this principle applies to much more than the Patriot Act. Almost every piece of legislation is put forth to address a “crisis” of one type or another–crises that often pass (if indeed they even ever existed at all), yet the legislation stays on the books forever absent explicit repeal. Sadly, it wasn’t to be, though:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, who shepherded the bill through the House, said sunset provisions were not necessary because there was no evidence the Patriot Act was being misused and lawmakers could provide sufficient oversight.

He also said 13 of the 16 provisions up for renewal have not been controversial, including one allowing increased communication between the FBI and CIA.

“Why sunset legislation where there’s been no actual record of abuse and vigorous oversight?” Sensenbrenner said.

This seems like a weak argument to me. The fact that it hasn’t been abused in the past doesn’t mean that it can’t be in the future. Anyway, I think that every federal law should have a sunset provision.