One thing that’s certain about U.S. Representative Tom McClintock is that he’s no liberal. He’s a conservative Republican who, in the past, has voted the Republican Party line.

In the past, that’s included voting in favor of Patriot Act extension. This week, however, Congressman McClintock admitted that he had been wrong. He said that he regretted his previous support for the Patriot Act.

Why? For McClintock, supporting the Patriot Act was expected, because he is a Republican. However, McClintock knew that extending the Patriot Act was not the conservative thing to do.

Conservatives oppose big government, and the Patriot Act represents the worst kind of big government that there is. The Patriot Act, along with the FISA Amendments Act, has allowed the federal government to establish a massive system of unconstitutional search and seizure, both electronic and physical. It’s Big Brother, watching where we go on the Internet, listening in on our telephone calls, keeping track of our shopping habits.

Tom McClintock could no longer pretend that the Patriot Act was about protecting America from terrorism. McClintock had seen the facts, documenting that the worst Patriot Act spying powers were used in cases connected to suspected terrorist conspiracies only 0.4 percent of the time. He also had seen the report by the Electronic Frontier Foundation indicating that Patriot Act spy operations had broken the rules, even as loose as they are under the Patriot Act tens of thousands of times – if not more.

On the floor of the House of Representatives, Tom McClintock gave the following speech explaining his opposition to the renewal of the Patriot Act:

“During this past year, I have become convinced that the provisions of the so-called Patriot Act are an affront to the Bill of Rights and a serious threat to our fundamental liberty as Americans.

The Fourth Amendment arises from the abuses of the British Crown that allowed roving searches by revenue agents under the guise of what were called ‘writs of assistance’ or ‘general warrants.’ Instead of following specific allegations against specific individuals, the Crown’s revenue agents were given free rein to search indiscriminately.

In 1761, the famous colonial leader James Otis challenged these writs, arguing that ‘a man’s house is his castle;and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege.” Now 250 years later, the Patriot Act restores these roving searches.

In the audience that day in 1761 was a 25-year-old lawyer named John Adams. He would later recall: ‘Every man of an immense crowded audience appeared to me to go away as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance. Then and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there, the child, ‘Independence’ was born.’

The American Founders responded with the Fourth Amendment. It provides that before the government can invade a person’s privacy the executive branch must present sworn testimony to an independent judiciary that a crime has occurred and that there is reason to believe that an individual should be searched for evidence of the crime, and then specify the place to be searched and the things to be seized. The John Doe roving wiretaps provided under this bill are a clear breach of this crystal-clear provision.

The entire point of having an open and independent judiciary is so that abuses of power can be quickly identified by the public and corrected. The very structure of this law prevents that from occurring.

I also object to the lone wolf provision of the act that allows a person who’s not acting in concert with a foreign power to be treated as if they were. This malignant fiction utterly blurs the critical distinction between a private person protected under our Constitution and an enemy combatant acting as an agent of a foreign power.

My chief of staff, Igor Birman, was born in Moscow. His family emigrated to America when he was 14. He tells of the days leading up to their long-awaited departure. His father had technical expertise, and the authorities were desperate to find some pretense to cancel the family’s exit visa.

A week before they departed for America, the family returned home to find that the Soviet authorities had turned their apartment upside down looking for anything that could be used to block their emigration. This was not the result of suspected criminal activity but, rather, the same kind of open-ended search the Fourth Amendment protects us against.

His younger brother was terrified and hysterical. His mother calmed the little boy by saying, Don’t worry, don’t worry. We’re leaving in a few days for America. This will never happen to us there.

Our country is threatened by foreign governments and multinational terrorist groups which are actively trying to do us harm, backed by a fifth column within our own borders. But we have faced far more powerful governments and far better organized networks of spies and saboteurs in the past without having to shred our Bill of Rights.

The freedom that our Constitution protects is the source of our economic prosperity, our moral authority, and our martial strength. It is also the ultimate bulwark against authoritarianism. Abraham Lincoln was right: No transatlantic military giant, let alone some fanatical terrorist group, can ever ‘step across the ocean and crush us at a blow.’ And no foreign power can destroy our Constitution. Only we can do that.

As Lincoln said: ‘As a Nation of free men, we are destined to live forever, or die by suicide.’