Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Is American "conservatism" and the President's Oath of Office, Incompatible?

dc_dux · 12-31-2007, 05:22 PM

Atreides....in the past, the taking away of constitutional rights was done through enactment of laws like the Sedition Act or formally suspending habeas as Lincoln did....with the participation,to some degree, of all three branches of government. It was not done through a unilateral interpretation of the Constitution by the Executive Branch to decide the powers of the Executive Branch.

If Bush felt the need for expanded warrantless wiretaps for national security purposes, he should have asked Congress to amend FISA before authorizing such surveillance on citizens...not acting outside the law for 2+ years and hiding it from Congress and then requesting a new FISA bill when he was caught...or if he wanted to expand the powers of the FBI to use "national security letters," he should have asked Congress to amend the Patriot Act first.

If he wanted to ignore US obligations under international treaties like the Generva Conventions, he should have sought Congressional approval.

Not to mention Bush's excessive use of executive signing statements to interpret laws enacted by Congress, mostly on domestic, non-security related bills

.....or classifying White House visitor records as "national security" to avoid disclosure of visits by convicted lobbyists like Jack Abramoff or those under investigation like Grover Norquist.

.... or claiming executive privilege for conversations between two WH staff members on the firing of US attorneys...when in the past, executive privilege has been limited to conversations between the President and an aid.

It is not necessarily a Republican/Democrat issue...but it is an issue of Bush/all past Presidents of either party and using the "threat to national security" to justify any and all questionable practices.
***
In any case, welcome to the politcal forum!

12-31-2007, 05:22 PM	#18 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Atreides....in the past, the taking away of constitutional rights was done through enactment of laws like the Sedition Act or formally suspending habeas as Lincoln did....with the participation,to some degree, of all three branches of government. It was not done through a unilateral interpretation of the Constitution by the Executive Branch to decide the powers of the Executive Branch. If Bush felt the need for expanded warrantless wiretaps for national security purposes, he should have asked Congress to amend FISA before authorizing such surveillance on citizens...not acting outside the law for 2+ years and hiding it from Congress and then requesting a new FISA bill when he was caught...or if he wanted to expand the powers of the FBI to use "national security letters," he should have asked Congress to amend the Patriot Act first. If he wanted to ignore US obligations under international treaties like the Generva Conventions, he should have sought Congressional approval. Not to mention Bush's excessive use of executive signing statements to interpret laws enacted by Congress, mostly on domestic, non-security related bills .....or classifying White House visitor records as "national security" to avoid disclosure of visits by convicted lobbyists like Jack Abramoff or those under investigation like Grover Norquist. .... or claiming executive privilege for conversations between two WH staff members on the firing of US attorneys...when in the past, executive privilege has been limited to conversations between the President and an aid. It is not necessarily a Republican/Democrat issue...but it is an issue of Bush/all past Presidents of either party and using the "threat to national security" to justify any and all questionable practices. *** In any case, welcome to the politcal forum! __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 12-31-2007 at 05:47 PM..