Historians looking at Bush presidency may well wonder if Congress actually existed - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 01-18-2008, 02:38 AM

We are about to experience a crucial end of the month, as far as deliberations in the US Senate go. Odds are, we'll get to see if Clinton and Obama take time away from their presidential primary campaigns to spend the time in the senate to support CT senator Chris Dodd's, probably futile attempt to block democratic majority leader Harry Reid's effort to push through a bill drafted by Cheney and Senate Intel Committee chair, WV democrat Jay Rockefeller.

<h3>(Note...on voting in the poll, I don't think I enabled multiple votes, so if you agree that this is an instance when you could consider violent protest, chose the third poll choice.... )</h3>

Unlike the bill passed late last year by the house, the senate bill Reid chose, includes immunity from telecom customer lawsuits for telecoms, except for Qwest Comm., deciding to cooperate with the government, without required warrants being issued, in turning over private communixations records and customer records, to government investigative and monitoring agencies. legal advisors at Qwest advised executives of that company not to cooperate with government request that did not include warrants authorized by judges, because it woild not be legal to do so without them,

Reid's choice...he could have selected the version of the bill which more closely matched the already passed house version, makes it necessary to achieve 60 votes in the senate to remove the telecom immunity provisions, instead of, as in the other version drafted by senate democrats, adding the telecom immunity as an amendment to the deomcratic senators' version.

I'll keep this simple...this bill, if passed, is even less protective of our right "to be secure in our papers", i.e. our fourth amendment protections against unreasonable search, than the temporary FISA "modernization",passed last August, without telecom immunity, and now set to expire in two weeks.

If Clinton and Obama do not join Dodd in the senate to speask and vote against passage of this bill, and with the democratic congress accumulating a legislative record as "Bush's poodle"...and, if you believe that sometimes violence is the only appropriate response to attempt to redress grievances against a government undermining the foundations of our constititutional bill of rights, would lack of firm oppostion to this bill by Clinton and Obama, and it's passage, be one of those times when consideration of responding with violent protest, in lieu of defense of our rights by either party's leaders and likely successors, be something you would consider, or....would you elect to wait.....for what, and for how long?

Quote:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...ust-exami.html
NSA Must Examine All Internet Traffic to Prevent Cyber Nine-Eleven, Top Spy Says
By Ryan Singel January 15, 2008 | 12:55:56 PM

....Simply put, the FISA law is intended to prevent the NSA from operating inside the United States.

In any event, that restriction collapsed this summer with the fear-induced, strong-armed passage of the so-called Protect America Act. That law radically re-architected the nation's surveillance apparatus.
Now the NSA can turn Gmail's servers and AT&T's switches into <a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/analysis-new-la.html">de facto arms of the surveillance industrial complex without any court oversight.</a>

And though the law ostensibly sunsets in February, any orders in effect at that time will have power for another 12 months. Moreover, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) is reportedly planning to discard legislative attempts to rein in these new powers and will instead simply push to extend the current scheme another 12 months.

In short, McConnell's politically convenient exaggerations have already worked well for him in winning domestic spying powers, despite their flimsiness under any real scrutiny....

http://snafu-ed.blogspot.com/2008/01...nitor-any.html
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Feds Drafting Plan to Monitor All Internet Activity
This will make warrantless wiretapping seem like a walk in the park. In the January 21st print edition of New Yorker magazine, Lawrence Wright's piece on Mike McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, The Spymaster, has some disturbing info about new measures the government is planning. These measures will infringe still further on our privacy - if in fact we have any after they are instituted.

<i>In order for cyberspace to be policed, Internet activity will have to be closely monitored. Ed Giorgio, who is working with McConnell on the plan, said that would mean giving the government the authority to examine the content of any e-mail, file transfer, or Web search. "Google has records that could help in a cyber-investigation," he said. Giorgio warned me, "We have a saying in this business: 'Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.'"</i>

You can also hear Wright interviewed <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/2008/01/21/080121on_audio_wright">here</a> by Matt Dellinger of the New Yorker. At about 17 minutes into the MP3 file, he says:

<i>We live in a world of an open Internet and we all depend on that. But the openness of it is also what makes it so fragile and vulnerable to attack - to manipulation and destruction by a sinister force. He's (McConnell) has come up with a cybersecurity policy that the president has not announced yet, but it would in many ways revolutionize the relationship between government and industry and also with American citizens.

Every bit of information throughout the Internet could be monitored by the government. This is going to be a very thorny development. It requires Americans giving up the presumption of privacy. But it may be the only way to protect the systems.</i>

The article is called The Spymaster in the January 21st issue of the New Yorker - print version (until they archive it) only.

Quote:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...008-01-18.html

Warrantless-spying debate puts Obama, Clinton in bind
By Manu Raju
Posted: 01/18/08 12:01 AM [ET]
A political landmine awaits Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) when the Senate takes up the hot-button issue of warrantless spying ahead of the pivotal Super Tuesday primary contests.

The Democratic presidential candidates’ votes could either give Republicans a fresh opening to attack them as weak on national security or provoke a backlash from the Democratic base.

Staying on the campaign trail, rather than returning to Capitol Hill, is no safe haven either. Campaigning instead of legislating would likely lead to griping from both sides about the candidates’ leadership on one of the most contentious issues facing the 110th Congress.

“As close as things are in the presidential race, I think it would be in their interest to show where they stand,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union. “If they don’t, it will certainly be remarked upon by activists.”

Attacks from the left could also fly toward Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a front-runner for the GOP nomination who has largely backed the administration on this issue. How the three candidates vote may also give a clue on whether they are starting to weigh a general-election strategy aimed at attracting more centrist voters, or are still taking positions that appeal to their respective bases active in the primaries.

At stake is Congress’s effort to overhaul the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Many liberal Democrats and civil liberties groups charge that a GOP-backed interim FISA bill passed last summer tramples on Americans’ constitutional right to privacy.

The Senate’s debate, likely to begin toward the end of next week, comes at a critical time during the nominating process. The short-term law, slammed by the left because it greatly expanded the government’s powers to conduct warrantless wiretapping, is set to expire Feb. 1. That is four days before Super Tuesday, when 22 states hold primaries that could catapult a candidate to the general election.

Obama and Clinton both voted against the White House-backed interim measure enacted in August, and they supported a Democratic alternative that would have provided more safeguards on privacy but failed to clear the Senate. McCain was not present for either of those votes.

In December, the Senate attempted to resurrect the debate. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) tried to bring a bipartisan bill to the floor that would establish new court and congressional oversight of the program, but would also grant retroactive legal immunity to the phone companies that participated in the wiretapping program after Sept. 11, 2001.

But Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, then a long-shot Democratic presidential candidate, returned from campaigning in Iowa and vowed to derail the bill because he said the retroactive immunity provision would let the Bush administration and phone companies off the hook for breaking the law. Supporters of the immunity provision argue that the companies should not be sued for working in the interest of national security, and the White House says President Bush will not sign a bill silent on the issue.

Reid was forced to pull the bill from the floor after Dodd led an effort to tie up the floor in procedural knots. While Obama and Clinton said they were supportive of Dodd’s effort, they were campaigning ahead of the Iowa caucuses, which were less than three weeks away.

During that debate, Dodd said he was “disappointed” that Obama and Clinton did not return to Capitol Hill to join his effort.

“I can’t go to a gathering of Democrats here and not have this issue come up here,” Dodd said. “This is the moment, and you ought to be here to be a part of it.”

Since Dodd objected to efforts by Reid to speed consideration of the bill in December, there is little time now for the Senate to conclude its debate and draft a bicameral compromise that Bush would be willing to sign before the Feb. 1 expiration date....

....An Obama aide would not say whether the senator would return to Washington for the debate or would support an extension of the current law. The aide said the senator is backing an amendment to strike the retroactive immunity language from the bill and supports “restoring oversight and accountability” to the program while ensuring there are "vital constitutional protections.”

Spokesmen in Clinton’s campaign and Senate offices did not return several inquiries seeking comment.

Democratic activists say the presidential candidates should stand up to the fear-mongering by the Republicans, arguing that polls show that the general public strongly opposes warrantless surveillance and retroactive immunity for the telecommunications firms.

Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), too, will likely add pressure to his rivals Obama and Clinton, having already criticized the Democratic-led Congress for not having a “backbone” on the issue.

Quote:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecry...FISA_vote.html
January 16, 2008
Read More: Homeland Security

Rove's eye will be on FISA vote

Take note, Democratic presidential operatives: Karl Rove will be very carefully watching the Senate floor vote on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Addressing the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting Wednesday, Rove urged the party faithful to watch closely how the Democratic presidential front-runners, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, vote on the issue.

“Do they or do they not want our intelligence agencies to be listening in on conversations between terrorists in the Middle East who may be plotting to hurt America?” Rove asked.....

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011302800.html
Dan Froomkin
White House Watch Columnist
Wednesday, January 16, 2008; 1:00 PM

....West Union, Iowa: What's your take on how the upcoming FISA renewal will play out?

Dan Froomkin: I'm betting on Bush beating the Democrats into submission again. So far, that's been a safe bet....

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...301134_pf.html
Congress Goes Belly Up

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, December 13, 2007; 11:46 AM

<h3>Historians looking back on the Bush presidency may well wonder if Congress actually existed.</h3>

Time and time again, President Bush has run circles around what is, at least on <a href="http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_zoom_1.html">paper</a>, a co-equal branch of government. Sometimes he doesn't bother to ask Congress for its approval. Sometimes he demands it -- and gets it.

Amazingly enough, that didn't change when the Democrats won control of the House and Senate. They just make a bit more fuss before rolling over.....

loquitur · 01-18-2008, 06:22 AM

Host, it takes several decades for any kind of real historical consensus to form about any particular president. There are still reassessments of Eisenhower going on, fercrissakes, and we have had 50 years to digest his impact. We're now seeing some revisions among historians about even FDR. Truman is generally viewed positively by historians, but as you know, he declined to run for re-election in 1952 because most of the country thought he was a disaster.

This is a long way of saying it's way too early to speculate about history's verdict on GWB. We'll need at least 20-30 years of seeing how things turned out before we can make any real assessments, and even then they'll be tentative.

Then again, I'm one of those guys who think Zachary Taylor is very underrated as a president, and JFK vastly overrated. It also strikes me, looking at American history, how overall lucky we have been in the people who have ended up leading the country. It hasn't been uniform, but for the most part we have had genuinely talented and conscientious people as Presidents. The bad presidents have been more of the "nonentity" variety than the evil variety.

aceventura3 · 01-19-2008, 05:45 AM

Congressional leaders who do not support President Bush for partisan reasons have put themselves in a very difficult position. It is politically popular to admonish Bush's policies, but from a practical point of view Bush's policies have not been that far out of line with what has been the right thing to do. Hence, you have votes for war, votes for funding the war, votes for tax cuts, etc., and basically Congress giving Bush almost everything he asks for in the name of fighting terrorism - all while being very vocal against Bush on those policy positions.

The leading Democratic Party Presidential candidates will do and say what needs to be done to get the party nomination, but once in office you will find their basic approach to being Commander in Chief will not be much different than Bush. Torture, spying, violations of civil liberties happened before Bush and they will happen after Bush. I am not saying it is right, but it is what it is, and sometimes you have to have the attitude of doing what needs to be done and risking the consequences. If the next President shows weakness and terrorists take advantage of that, the Bush Presidency will serve as a model on how to handle this new form of warfare.

dc_dux · 01-19-2008, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

....from a practical point of view Bush's policies have not been that far out of line with what has been the right thing to do

....the Bush Presidency will serve as a model on how to handle this new form of warfare.

Only if we tear up the Constitution and the concept of separation of powers upon which it was created and are willing to accept a chief executive who will resort to any illegal and unethical act to support an ideological agenda and justify those actions as necessary to protect us from the terrorist boogeymen.

Oh...and thanks for reminding us all that only Democrats are partisan with the rest of your less than objective and factually dubious observations.

****

as to the poll question, I assume "violent anti-government protest" means armed insurrection rather than acts of vandalism.

and my answer is NO, not on a FISA vote. There is still room for other forms of protest...particularly at the ballot box in November...or even better, finding a way to get the 65-70% of Americans who disagree with Bush's policies and actions off their apathetic asses and into the streets in massive, peaceful demonstrations across the country between now and November.

but YES, only under the most extreme scenario, like if one year and one day from now, Bush/Cheney refuse to leave the White House in the name of national security.

aceventura3 · 01-19-2008, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Only if we tear up the Constitution and the concept of separation of powers upon which it was created and are willing to accept a chief executive who will resort to any illegal and unethical act to support an ideological agenda and justify those actions as necessary to protect us from the terrorist boogeymen.

A statement like the one above makes me think that that you don't think there were any Constitutional issues concerning the separation of power prior to Bush. In my view there have been on-going power struggles and shifts in power between the executive and legislative branches of government. Many Presidents have tested the limits of executive power and some have crossed the line. History has given some of these Presidents a pass on their "transgressions' with executive power, i.e. FDR.

Quote:

Oh...and thanks for reminding us all that only Democrats are partisan with the rest of your less than objective and factually dubious observations.

****

I did not write what you suggest here. The context of the OP is Congressional leadership, Democrats currently control Congress, are most vocal against Bush - yet give him what he wants. In addition Host specifically mentions Clinton and Obama.

Thanks for reminding me about how easy it is for some to take points out of context to create a straw man argument.

dc_dux · 01-19-2008, 04:14 PM

ace....the difference between us is clear.

As you have stated in the past, you think its ok to give the President the benefit of the doubt (and his actions are the "right thing to do" - as you stated above), in the name of national security, when he:

* allegedly violates the FISA law as he did for 2+ years by authorizing wiretaps without a warrant and demands immunity for telecomms for their illegal actions during that same period.
* issues a signing statement on the Patriot Act that unilaterally overturns the intent of Congress regarding several provisions of the law, including the FBI's use of national security letters
* unilaterally interprets US obligations under the Geneva Conventions, without consulting Congress or the Judiciary
* allegedly violates the Presidential Records Act by destroying 5,000+ e-mails during the time when the WH was discussion the outing of a CIA operative and the use of intel to justify the invasion of Iraq
*uses the executive privilege argument to withhold information from Congress resulting from conversations between two EOB aides, when in the past executive privilege has been limited to information/conversations between the President and an aide.

I'm not aware that FDR committed similar acts, without at least consulting Congress (your straw man argument)

And I still value the separation of powers and checks and balances.

My question to you:
Would you give Hillary the same benefit of doubt if/when she is President?

host · 01-19-2008, 05:17 PM

Please convince me that what it is at stake in the coming battle in the US senate concerning permanent modifications to "FISA laws", is so much different from what James Otis argued in Boston in 1761, in order that I will not continue my thinking that the poll results here, limited as they are, provide an answer as to why our fourth amendment protections are being eroded.

Originally the provisions of the bill of rights were insisted upon by representatives of a recenlty rebelious people, This citizenry had made it plain to authority that they viewed certain rights to be "inalienable", and that they were willing to take up arms against that authority to back their rhetoric.

After actually having taken up those arms, and fighting and dying to secure their independence from the former authority at great sacrifice to themselves, they were a credible force to be reckoned with by those attempting to draft a new consitution.

The poll results here, along with the general sentiment in this country, tell me that almost none of us are even willing to consider violently opposing efforts to weaken "our right to be secure in our papers", and in our homes, against search or seizure without "probable cause".

The authority also knows that, and since we project that we won't consider it reasonable to respond to the taking away of our bill of rights, by fighting, and if necessary, dying to prevent it, it is happening.

When you are "fresh from the fight", you have the most credibility, and means to intimidate without openly threatening. When you answer the poll question the way all of you, so far, have....you probably actually have to demonstrate a willingness to take up armed resistance, and then do it, to sufficiently intimidate authority to stop what the fuck they are in the midst of doing. They aren't concerned about our reaction, and it follows that they would dare to legislate our inalienable rights away from us....

Quote:

http://law.jrank.org/pages/2352/Writ...us-Rights.html
Writs of Assistance Trial: 1761 - Writs Versus Rights

The case turned on interpretation of the legal basis for the writs. Jeremiah Gridley, acting for the customs officials, maintained that necessities of state justified limitations on traditional English rights:

<h3>"It is true the common privileges of Englishmen are taken away in this Case, but even their privileges are not so in case of Crime and fine.</h3> 'Tis the necessity of the Case and the benefit of the Revenue that justifies this Writ. Is not the Revenue the sole support of Fleets & Armies abroad, & Ministers at home? without which the Nation could neither be preserved from the Invasion of her foes, nor the Tumults of her own Subjects. Is not this I say infinitely more important, that the imprisonment of Thieves, or even Murderers? yet in these Cases 'tis agreed Houses may be broken open."

Gridley included in his argument references to statutory precedents.

In rebuttal, Oxenbridge Thacher also referred to precedents. The colonial Superior Court's power was in the case of the writs being held comparable to that of the Court of Exchequer in England. Thacher reasoned there was no justification for such a comparison. He also criticized the longevity of the writs, stressing how their power could be abused by repeated use.

Following Thacher, James Otis spoke like "a flame of fire," according to John Adams. He, too, spoke of precedent. He built an elaborate argument that began with an individual's God-iven natural rights and the birth of societal compacts. He continued through old Saxon laws, Magna Carta, and actions taken over time to secure and confirm rights and principals of England's unwritten constitution.

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...679D946097D6CF
FOR BOSTON STATE HOUSE.; Historical Painting to be Placed in Staircase Hall -- Reid's Picture of James Otis Before the Superior Court.

November 25, 1901, Wednesday

....The subject given out for this decoration was "a scene in the old Town House'of Eoston in February, 1761, when James Otis made his famous argument against the" ' " writs of assistance " demanded by the' British Government to,assist the Crown officers in enforcing the laws governing the Customs. By the aid of such writs the Customs officials might call on local Sher-' iffs and Constables to assist, them in houses, stores, shops, and ships where dutiable goods were suspected which had been imported without paying the taxes imposed by Parliament in the Acts of Trade passed from time to time during the preceding century. Application was made in Salem in 1760 and referred to the Februl ary Term of the Superior Court meeting in Boston in February, 17(51. Meantime Lieut. Gov. Hutchlnson was appointed Chief Justice by the Crown, so that the trial might come before-a man thoroughly loyal. It Is the scene of Otis's argument against the assumption of Parliament which has been chosen,-and well chosen, to form the chief, if not the only, decoration for the Staircase Gallery....

....The picture when seen from the floor of the hall will' be at about I the height of twenty feet; when seen from the galleries it will be on the level of the eyes. We owe to a reminiscence of John Adams the preservation of this scene. "Writing" '.slx years later to William Tudor, he sketches the.scene in the council chamber of the old Boston Town House, speaks of the big fire on the hearth, the five Judges "all arrayed In their, new, fresh, rich robes of scarlet English broadcloth. In their large cambric bands and immense judicial ." <h3>Adams goes so far as to say: " American independence was then and there born; the seeds of patriots and heroes were then : and there sown, to defend the vigorous youth, the non sine Diis animus . Every man of a 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.</h3> In fifteen years, In 1776, he up to Manhood and declared himself free." James Otis is supposed to be uttering these words: " I will to my dying day oppose with all the powers and faculties God has given me all such Instruments of slavery on the one hand and villainy on the other as this Writ of Assistance la."

Quote:

http://www.mnstate.edu/borchers/Research/otis.htm
A Rhetorical Analysis of
James Otis's Against Writs of Assistance
By Tim Borchers

.......First, the Chief Justice "possibly feeling the emotion in the open courtroom, adjourned the case until fall to give himself time to write to England for instructions" (Pleasants 21). In November 1761, the court ruled writs were indeed legal. However, <h3>Adams wrote that even though the court granted the writs, he "never knew that they [customs agents] dared to produce them or execute them in any one instance </h3>(Life and Works 10:248). Frese noted that Otis's arguments "formed the basis of many subsequent refusals to grant the writ in other colonies (498). Five years later, in 1766, the matter was settled when, based on a Connecticut appeal to Britain, Attorney General William de Grey decided that "any deputation giving the colonial customs officials general powers of search was not founded in law" (Frese 504).

As for the popularity Otis may have achieved because of the speech, Tyler argued the speech "made him at once a leader in public opinion in New England respecting the constitutional rights of the colonies" (401). Further, Otis was elected almost unanimously to the state legislature one month after the trial (Adams, Life and Works 10:248). It is entirely probable that colonists knew of Otis's speech. Frese argued that it was likely the speech was discussed and copies distributed (497). The Massachusetts Spy, a radical journal published in Boston printed the speech in 1773, when writs again were questioned. Otis's use of natural rights to argue against a law he felt was unjust supports Jamieson's (238) conclusion. Publicly rejecting the injustice of writs of assistance is another explanation for Otis's popularity. Frese concluded that "we wonder if his arguments did not have more influence than can be proved" (497).

Today, jurists praise Otis's initial formation of constitutional law. New York attorney Daniel J. Kernstein argued the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is "directly attributable to Otis's courtroom argument. . . His role in the Writs of Assistance case was an important part of the intellectual framework of our Constitution" (2). This view is supported by numerous political science textbooks which discuss constitutional law (Burns and Peltason 188). Former Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Edward F. Hennessey remarked:

Many momentous events have occurred in three centuries before the high court of Massachusetts. None is more significant, more dramatic, more compelling in its lasting effect upon America-indeed upon the whole Western world-than the brilliant argument against writs of assistance offered by James Otis, Jr., before the court in 1761. (31)

Even today, advocates use natural law as a basis for argument. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, for example, espoused the natural rights doctrine in many of his legal writings and when he testified at Senate confirmation hearings. Some say "right to die" advocate, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, is arguing from the principle of a higher moral law. Studying Otis's historic use of natural rights allows communication scholars to better understand contemporary uses of this persuasive strategy and its effects. Jamieson concluded, "The topos [natural law] is uniquely useful where an ultimate appeal is required, and that it can be used, rendered both credible and persuasive, because it satisfies a psychological need of men [sic]" (241). For the colonists of 1761, if not for Otis himself, that need was freedom from tyranny.

scout · 01-20-2008, 03:51 AM

OMG I voted with host on this one....

Despite all their promises to the contrary the democrats have done since taking control of both houses but rubber stamp a lame duck president's intrusive policies. This country truly needs a viable third party.

dc_dux · 01-20-2008, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

OMG I voted with host on this one....

Despite all their promises to the contrary the democrats have done since taking control of both houses but rubber stamp a lame duck president's intrusive policies. This country truly needs a viable third party.

I guess you dont count:

* Restoring the Constitution Act (to restore US treaty obligations regarding rights of individuals under detention....blocked by Republicans in the Senate)
* Habeas Corpus Restoration Act (similar to above, blocked by Republicans in the Senate)
* Open Government Act of 2007 (Democratic bill to ease FOIA restrictions imposed by Bush, with enough Republican support to make it veto-proof)
* Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (first meaningful Congressional ethics and lobbyist reform bill in years)
* Reducing Over-Classification Act of 2007 (introduced by 14 Democratic committee chairs in the House in response to Bush classifying practically everthing)
* National Security Letters Reform Act of 2007 (introduced by Democrats to provide procedural protections for FBI use of NSLs in response to Bush's signing statement on Patriot Act that expanded FBI power to use NSLs contrary to Congressional intent)

IMO, an objective review and analysis of the Democrats first year in the majority would give them a little credit for trying to reign in the excesses of the Bush administration and the previous Republican majority in Congress.

Tully Mars · 01-20-2008, 05:57 AM

And how exactly are the Dems supposed to do much of anything with basically a 51-49 split and Bush's veto pen in the waiting?

The only thing the Dems could seriously do is shut down the governemnt. Something the GOP did for a while in the 90's. In the 90's we didn't have such a war going on with solders dying nearly everyday.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I guess you dont count:

* Restoring the Constitution Act (blocked by Republicans in the Senate)
* Habeas Corpus Restoration Act (blocked by Republicans in the Senate)
* Open Government Act of 2007 (Democratic bill to ease FOIA restrictions imposed by Bush, with enough Republican support to make it veto-proof)
* Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (first meaningful Congressional ethics and lobbyist reform bill in years)
* Reducing Over-Classification Act of 2007 (introduced by 14 Democratic committee chairs in the House in response to Bush classifying practically everthing)
* National Security Letters Reform Act of 2007 (introduced by Democrats to provide procedural protections for FBI use of NSLs in response to Bush's signing statement on Patriot Act that expanded FBI power to use NSLs contrary to Congressional intent)

IMO, an objective review and analysis of the Democrats first year in the majority would give them a little credit for trying to reign in the excesses of the Bush administration

aceventura3 · 01-20-2008, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....the difference between us is clear.

As you have stated in the past, you think its ok to give the President the benefit of the doubt (and his actions are the "right thing to do" - as you stated above), in the name of national security, when he:

* allegedly violates the FISA law as he did for 2+ years by authorizing wiretaps without a warrant and demands immunity for telecomms for their illegal actions during that same period.

I would have done the same given the circumstances. I would not have risked asking Congress to publicly change the law letting those subject to the wiretaps become aware of our efforts. To date no American has come foward and shown any violation of their civil liberty.

Quote:

* issues a signing statement on the Patriot Act that unilaterally overturns the intent of Congress regarding several provisions of the law, including the FBI's use of national security letters

Intent of Congress??? Congress needs to be clear. When issues are open to interpretation the Judicial Branch can help sort it out. If there is an issue with intent - Congress needs to step up and exercise their power rather than sit back and complain. This is the kind of issue that has been at issue in many administrations with Congress throughout our history.

Quote:

* unilaterally interprets US obligations under the Geneva Conventions, without consulting Congress or the Judiciary

I think the role of the President is to interpret US obligations when it comes to treaties and international agreements.

Quote:

* allegedly violates the Presidential Records Act by destroying 5,000+ e-mails during the time when the WH was discussion the outing of a CIA operative and the use of intel to justify the invasion of Iraq

We know what happened with the Plame affair. If Congress thinks the President committed a crime, they should impeach him. Why haven't they?

Quote:

*uses the executive privilege argument to withhold information from Congress resulting from conversations between two EOB aides, when in the past executive privilege has been limited to information/conversations between the President and an aide.

I am not familiar with this issue.

Quote:

I'm not aware that FDR committed similar acts, without at least consulting Congress (your straw man argument)

You take my point out of context. Perhaps you don't understand the point or you just ignore it. I don't know which and don't know how to respond to you.

Quote:

And I still value the separation of powers and checks and balances.

I do to. I think for the system to work all sides need to be active and be willing to fight to maintain the balance. Passivity will cause the system to fail, I think Congress has been to passive relative to their level of complaint.

Quote:

My question to you:
Would you give Hillary the same benefit of doubt if/when she is President?

Yes.

I gave that benefit to Bill Clinton. Generally, I have a bias to the Executive Branch, the place where 'the buck stops'.

scout · 01-20-2008, 07:18 AM

It takes 60 votes to get something passed in the Senate, can you name something they democrats actually stopped rather than name something they failed to pass? If it takes shutting down the government to prevent any further losses of our constitutional rights don't you think it would be worth it? I think the Democrats failed to grasp it wasn't an anti-war vote in 2006 that allowed them to take control of both houses but rather a anti-Patriot Act and a gluttonous out of control Republican party that gave the majority to the Democrats. Instead of at least attempting to impeach Bush for lying about Iraq and locking the government down for a couple years until we could get real change in the oval office they attempted a bunch of anti-war and other crap that didn't fly and became really confused as to what the hell we sent them there for. They are still confused and spewing two year old rhetoric. Here's a clue, Americans want real change and not business as usual. Most Americans prefer the war to be fought across the pond rather than in our back yard. Most Americans want an economic package that includes some good paying manufacturing and high tech jobs. Most Americans are bewildered at the size of our governments debt load and we don't want to be taxed to death to pay it down. If that means downsizing the government and giving up a few government gimmes so be it. We realize there has to be taxes and we just want everyone to pay their fair share, no more no less. We don't want to have to prop up the economy by swapping houses and being able to get loans we can't afford. We want clean reusable energy and if that means we inconvenience, not obliterate, a few bugs, bats and other mammals in the process so be it. We gotta do what we have to do to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. Most Americans are Christians and we would like a little morality in our government and by everyone in public places. Like it or not this country was founded by Christians on Christian values and most Americans like it that way. What you do in your own home we really don't give a damn but please quit trying to push this free for all do anything you want where ever you want way far left twist down our throats. And most of all we want our personal freedoms back and a check on big brother and if that means locking down government for a year or two until we get it back so be it. I could go on and on but I won't, it's useless.

Now you all can slam me and post your thousand links to disprove everything I've said and I don't care. Which ever party finally figures it out and gets their collective heads out of their asses before November will probably be the one that takes the oval office this year.

dc_dux · 01-20-2008, 08:04 AM

scout....I guess you really arent interested in reading the six links (hardly a "thousand") to Democratic bills I posted that attempt to restore some rights guaranteed in the Constitution, return more openness and transparency to the federal government and hold our elected representatives more accountable for their actions. Its easier to bitch that they are all the same rather than acknowledge that the Democrats have done anything positive.

It takes more than one year to undue seven years of Bush/Republican excesses in the name of national security, particularly with a razor thin majority. Thats not to say the Democrats do not share some blame and responsibility for not doing more.

But good luck in finding a candidate who supports locking the government down for a couple years, restoring Christian values (so much for imposing your values on other citizens), proposing an economic package that includes good paying jobs or a program to reduce out dependency on foreign oil (oh wait...you dont want big government involved in your life, so good luck with the "free market" accomplishing these things anytime soon). Smaller government....which "government gimme" are you willing to give up?

I honestly dont know what you want...perhaps Ron Paul? But then that would not support your claims about what "most Americans want"..since he is attracting about 5% of the voting public.

***

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Generally, I have a bias to the Executive Branch, the place where 'the buck stops'.

ace....correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds to me like you support the Gonzales interpretation of the Constitution....that Article 2 of the Constitution gives the President the sole Constitutional authority to determine the power of the Executive Branch under that same Article 2.

Sorry, but the Constitution does not have a bias to the Executive Branch. "The buck stops at the Executive Branch" is not a Constitutional provision or mandate, but simply a folksy saying by a former president to accept responsibility for actions of his administration, not to unilaterally determine the extent of Executive power....unlike "I am the Decider". Hardly what the framers envisioned in a system of checks and balances.

I will look forward to your support of Hillary if/when her EOP staff destroy millions of WH e-mails (including some that might be potentially incriminating of a criminal action), withholds documents and prohibits EOP staff from testifying under oath at Congressional oversight investigations on dubious claims of executive privilege, orders the Secret Service to classify WH visitor logs to keep the public from knowing when criminals (ie Jack Abaramoff) visit, issues more signing statements than the last 10 presidents combined in order to alter the intent of laws enacted by Congress, interprets other US laws and treaty obligations rather than leaving it to the Judiciary.......

I will be the one complaining about an Executive Branch that has overstepped its Constitutional authority.

Tully Mars · 01-20-2008, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I would have done the same given the circumstances. I would not have risked asking Congress to publicly change the law letting those subject to the wiretaps become aware of our efforts. To date no American has come foward and shown any violation of their civil liberty.

Brandon Mayfield?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Intent of Congress??? Congress needs to be clear. When issues are open to interpretation the Judicial Branch can help sort it out. If there is an issue with intent - Congress needs to step up and exercise their power rather than sit back and complain. This is the kind of issue that has been at issue in many administrations with Congress throughout our history.

Congress is as divided, possibly more, then the population. The intent of Congress can't be defined anymore then the intent of the American citizen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I think the role of the President is to interpret US obligations when it comes to treaties and international agreements.

Granted I'm no expert, but aren't these treaties and agreements drafted much like legal contracts? You know in way that outlines the responsibility of each party, thus removing the need to interpret.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

We know what happened with the Plame affair. If Congress thinks the President committed a crime, they should impeach him. Why haven't they?

Numbers

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I do to. I think for the system to work all sides need to be active and be willing to fight to maintain the balance. Passivity will cause the system to fail, I think Congress has been to passive relative to their level of complaint.

I agree with you here... I think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Yes.

I gave that benefit to Bill Clinton. Generally, I have a bias to the Executive Branch, the place where 'the buck stops'.

I would not and do not favor power loading the Executive Branch, regardless of the individual occupying the office. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

scout · 01-20-2008, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

But good luck in finding a candidate who supports locking the government down for a couple years, restoring Christian values (so much for imposing your values on other citizens), .................... Smaller government....which "government gimme" are you willing to give up?

Don't put words into my mouth, I'm not forcing anything or any sort of value system on you. I was merely pointing out what people want in all those blue states in between the eight or ten red states on either coast. As far as the government gimmes, I currently don't get any gimmes so you can take every single one of them and toss'em for all I care. By the time I'm old enough for social security and medicaid it will be broke anyway so why should I continue to be taxed for a failed system?

Tully Mars · 01-20-2008, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

Don't put words into my mouth, I'm not forcing anything or any sort of value system on you. I was merely pointing out what people want in all those blue states in between the eight or ten red states on either coast. As far as the government gimmes, I currently don't get any gimmes so you can take every single one of them and toss'em for all I care. By the time I'm old enough for social security and medicaid it will be broke anyway so why should I continue to be taxed for a failed system?

All depends on how you define "government gimme." Do you get a check in your account or mailbox once a month? I'm guessing by your comments that's a big NO. Are the Feds paying for your health? Again, I'm guessing no. But do you drive on roads you built? If you call will a fire truck come to your house? Police? Ever fly anywhere? Are you running your own sewage system? Water? Like the fact the military is able to defend you?

aceventura3 · 01-21-2008, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

It takes 60 votes to get something passed in the Senate, can you name something they democrats actually stopped rather than name something they failed to pass? If it takes shutting down the government to prevent any further losses of our constitutional rights don't you think it would be worth it? I think the Democrats failed to grasp it wasn't an anti-war vote in 2006 that allowed them to take control of both houses but rather a anti-Patriot Act and a gluttonous out of control Republican party that gave the majority to the Democrats. Instead of at least attempting to impeach Bush for lying about Iraq and locking the government down for a couple years until we could get real change in the oval office they attempted a bunch of anti-war and other crap that didn't fly and became really confused as to what the hell we sent them there for. They are still confused and spewing two year old rhetoric. Here's a clue, Americans want real change and not business as usual. Most Americans prefer the war to be fought across the pond rather than in our back yard. Most Americans want an economic package that includes some good paying manufacturing and high tech jobs. Most Americans are bewildered at the size of our governments debt load and we don't want to be taxed to death to pay it down. If that means downsizing the government and giving up a few government gimmes so be it. We realize there has to be taxes and we just want everyone to pay their fair share, no more no less. We don't want to have to prop up the economy by swapping houses and being able to get loans we can't afford. We want clean reusable energy and if that means we inconvenience, not obliterate, a few bugs, bats and other mammals in the process so be it. We gotta do what we have to do to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. Most Americans are Christians and we would like a little morality in our government and by everyone in public places. Like it or not this country was founded by Christians on Christian values and most Americans like it that way. What you do in your own home we really don't give a damn but please quit trying to push this free for all do anything you want where ever you want way far left twist down our throats. And most of all we want our personal freedoms back and a check on big brother and if that means locking down government for a year or two until we get it back so be it. I could go on and on but I won't, it's useless.

Now you all can slam me and post your thousand links to disprove everything I've said and I don't care. Which ever party finally figures it out and gets their collective heads out of their asses before November will probably be the one that takes the oval office this year.

Regardless if we agree on specifics your point is on target.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds to me like you support the Gonzales interpretation of the Constitution....that Article 2 of the Constitution gives the President the sole Constitutional authority to determine the power of the Executive Branch under that same Article 2.

That is not my view.

Quote:

Sorry, but the Constitution does not have a bias to the Executive Branch. "The buck stops at the Executive Branch" is not a Constitutional provision or mandate, but simply a folksy saying by a former president...

Yea, that is correct. And I agree that folksy sayings have no Constitutional value.

Quote:

I will look forward to your support of Hillary if/when her EOP staff destroy millions of WH e-mails (including some that might be potentially incriminating of a criminal action), withholds documents and prohibits EOP staff from testifying under oath at Congressional oversight investigations on dubious claims of executive privilege, orders the Secret Service to classify WH visitor logs to keep the public from knowing when criminals (ie Jack Abaramoff) visit, issues more signing statements than the last 10 presidents combined in order to alter the intent of laws enacted by Congress, interprets other US laws and treaty obligations rather than leaving it to the Judiciary.......

I respect the fact that a President has to make tough decisions under tough circumstances. Presidents will make mistakes. I have no problem with any President making a mistake when they are acting in the best interest of the country. I would support a Ms. Clinton under those circumstances. However, my original point is that you really won't find much difference in her approach to the Executive office and Executive power than Bush.

dc_dux · 01-21-2008, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I respect the fact that a President has to make tough decisions under tough circumstances. Presidents will make mistakes. I have no problem with any President making a mistake when they are acting in the best interest of the country.

The issue is not a president making mistakes...it is a president willfully and unilaterally determining his/her own executive powers without consulting, or even informing, the other co-equal branches of government.

I'm having a hard time understanding your position. You say you dont agree with the Gonzales principle (a president can determine his own Constitutional powers), but based on your previous statements, it appears you support a president acting outside the law or taking action based on his/her own interpretation of the Constitution (eg warrantless wiretaps) if he/she believes it is in the best interest of the country.

I dont.

Quote:

... However, my original point is that you really won't find much difference in her approach to the Executive office and Executive power than Bush.

Of course, you have nothing to support this statement, other than personal opinion and, based on many of her votes, the opposite is closer to the truth.

In fact, if you take her at her word (I know thats hard to do regarding any of the candidates), she has clearly stated that she would not follow the Bush approach to executive power in several key areas:

Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?

No. The President is not above the law.

Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?

I have opposed the Bush Administration's abuse of signing statements, and as President, I would not use signing statements to disagree on policy grounds with legislation passed by Congress or as an end run around the veto. I would only use signing statements in very rare instances to note and clarify confusing or contradictory provisions, including provisions that contradict the Constitution. My approach would be to work with Congress to eliminate or correct unconstitutional provisions before legislation is sent to my desk.

Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?

No.

Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?

Under our Constitution, they also are the law of the land, and the President has the same duty to comply with them as with any other valid law.

Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?

The Bush Administration has acted unconstitutionally in failing to comply with FISA, failing to adhere to Congress's prohibitions on torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and attempting to hold enemy combatants indefinitely at Guantanamo without review, to name a few examples. More fundamentally, I reject the basic premise of the Bush Administration's view that Executive Power is not subject to the rule of law or to constitutional checks and balances.

And other questions on which she agrees.....Boston Globe survey

But then again, as someone noted.....power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely....so there is no telling what she might do if elected.

And my concern is that the Bush precedent of determining his own Constitutional powers leaves the door wide open for similar excesses by any future president.

aceventura3 · 01-22-2008, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The issue is not a president making mistakes...it is a president willfully and unilaterally determining his/her own executive powers without consulting, or even informing, the other co-equal branches of government. I'm having a hard time understanding your position.

We generally live in, like, parallel universes, yours is a glorious place where everything is done by the rules, everyone cooperates and everyone gets along. And when that doesn't happen things get all screwed up. In my universe rules are made to be broken, everyone does what is in their best interest and you have to watch your back.

Hence, if I am President and I want more power, I won't consult those I am taking power from.

Hence, if I take an action that I think is right and others think wrong - I am right until I am made to suffer a consequence.

Hence, if I am will to go to a further extreme than others to stand up for what I believe in - my point of view will prevail.

I hope that gives you a better understanding of how my views are formulated.

dc_dux · 01-22-2008, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

We generally live in, like, parallel universes, yours is a glorious place where everything is done by the rules, everyone cooperates and everyone gets along. And when that doesn't happen things get all screwed up. In my universe rules are made to be broken, everyone does what is in their best interest and you have to watch your back.

Hence, if I am President and I want more power, I won't consult those I am taking power from.

Hence, if I take an action that I think is right and others think wrong - I am right until I am made to suffer a consequence.

Hence, if I am will to go to a further extreme than others to stand up for what I believe in - my point of view will prevail.

I hope that gives you a better understanding of how my views are formulated.

ace...I get it now.

Expanding one'e power unilaterally in pursuit of "what you believe in" trumps the rule of law, Constitutional safeguards of checks and balances, and the Presidential oath of office.

In case you forgot:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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."

It doesnt say "I will interpret the Constitution myself to support what I think is right"

Tully Mars · 01-22-2008, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

We generally live in, like, parallel universes, yours is a glorious place where everything is done by the rules, everyone cooperates and everyone gets along. And when that doesn't happen things get all screwed up. In my universe rules are made to be broken, everyone does what is in their best interest and you have to watch your back.

Hence, if I am President and I want more power, I won't consult those I am taking power from.

Hence, if I take an action that I think is right and others think wrong - I am right until I am made to suffer a consequence.

Hence, if I am will to go to a further extreme than others to stand up for what I believe in - my point of view will prevail.

I hope that gives you a better understanding of how my views are formulated.

I believe they have governments like this. They're called dictatorships.

dc_dux · 01-22-2008, 06:33 AM

Dick: We must go to a further extreme than others to stand up for what we believe in

George: Fuck yeah....its only a piece of paper....after all, we ARE the president and we want more power!

aceventura3 · 01-22-2008, 11:52 AM

I don't understand what is complicated about the concept of checks and balances.

If you have a responsibility to 'check' my behavior in order to maintain a balance and I have that same responsibility to 'check' your behavior - then if one of us fails in fulfilling our responsibility to 'check' the other, who is at fault? I guess you would say the one who took advantage of the one 'asleep at the wheel'. I would say the one 'asleep at the wheel' is at fault.

If Congress has allowed Bush to make a mockery of the Constitution and civil liberties I have a problem with Congress.

However, for the record I don't think Bush has made a mockery of the Constitution, the civil liberties of some have been violated but not to the degree where it would be worthy of impeachment or the descriptive term "mockery". In-fact like I said before I would have taken many of the same actions Bush has given the circumstances.

I can also separate my political views on an action taken by a President from the intent or motivation for an action taken by a President. Therefore I clearly understand the actions considered unconstitutional taken by a president like FDR even if I disagree with those actions politically.

host · 01-22-2008, 12:18 PM

ace, I gave you a good explanation, in post #8, here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=121564

...as to why Mr. Bush cannot be trusted concerning staying within the framework of the FISA law, you never replied. Post #1 in that thread, illustrates why none of Mr. Bush's statements can be trusted, although you disagreed...

dksuddeth · 01-22-2008, 12:40 PM

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this thread.
It seems like dc_dux is channeling me.

aceventura3 · 01-22-2008, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace, I gave you a good explanation, in post #8, here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=121564

...as to why Mr. Bush cannot be trusted concerning staying within the framework of the FISA law, you never replied. Post #1 in that thread, illustrates why none of Mr. Bush's statements can be trusted, although you disagreed...

My point is - I do not trust Bush. I do not trust you. I do not trust the Pope. I believe all of you will do what you think is in your best interest and if that conflicts with my interest I will get 'screwed' unless I stand up and fight for my interests. If my interests are aligned with Bush, you or the Pope then that makes us o.k., but I still wont trust you, Bush or the Pope.

So you argue the wrong point with me. I agree that Bush can not be "trusted" to act within the frame work of the FISA law. If I wrote the law or had the responsibility of checks and balances I would have a means to make sure the law was being enforced and carried out as I intended. If I found a violation I would make sure there were consequences for the violation. Assuming Bush violated the law, Bush pretty much gave Congress the finger and defiantly asked what they were going to do about it. What did they do? Pretty much nothing.

It like the penalty of holding in football. If you comit the infraction of holding on a play and your team scores, but the ref did not make the call - are you guilty of holding? Yes and no. You certainly committed the infraction, but your team scored. On the other hand if the ref calls the penalty, your team loses points, yards - you may be subject to increased scrutiny, you may lose your starting position, you may lose your 7 figure contract, you may lose you r super model wife, etc.

So there you have it. Consequence minimizes infractions. On the other hand if let people get away with what you think is wrong, they keep doing it. In the end, I actually think we agree, because I thought your point was more about the failings of Congress, I don't dispute Bush doing things to test the limits of what is legal or within his executive power.

dc_dux · 01-22-2008, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this thread.
It seems like dc_dux is channeling me.

dk....its a mad, mad world!

Me channeling you...(I have always been a staunch defender of the Constitution, we just differ on interpretation)

...and ace channeling his favorite despot, Hugo Chavez:

if I am President and I want more power, I won't consult those I am taking power from.

if I take an action that I think is right and others think wrong - I am right until I am made to suffer a consequence.

if I am will to go to a further extreme than others to stand up for what I believe in - my point of view will prevail.

aceventura3 · 01-22-2008, 02:45 PM

I think you understand.

I disagree with Chavez's politics, but I respect him. He the kind of guy that has no hidden agenda, he speaks and acts with clarity.

dc_dux · 01-22-2008, 02:57 PM

ace....I understand.

I have less respect for thugs in office and more respect for the rule of law.

host · 01-23-2008, 05:27 AM

dc_dux, if Harry Reid's aide, really said what I've highlighted in the excerpt below, why would it be unreasonable to for me to dismiss, from any serious consideration as an advocate for our fourth amendment protections from unwarranted government intrusion, every democrat in the senate who does not openly call for Harry Reid to step down as majority leader?

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/wa...rssnyt&emc=rss
Democrats Try to Delay Eavesdropping Vote

By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: January 23, 2008

...The immunity issue has splintered Senate Democrats. Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who leads the Intelligence Committee, has received approval from his committee for a plan that includes immunity.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has won passage of a competing plan that leaves it out.

“In the end, I think something like the Intelligence Committee bill would pass — with the immunity,” said a senior Democratic official who opposes the immunity plan and insisted on anonymity. “I don’t know that it’s possible to get anything through the Senate that doesn’t grant the telecom companies immunity.”

Advocates for civil liberties fault the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, for what they see as a weak effort to block the White House immunity plan. <h3>Mr. Reid opposes immunity, but his decision to allow an initial vote on the Intelligence Committee plan, with immunity, has angered opponents.

“If Senator Reid wanted to win, he would have put the judiciary vote on the floor first,”</h3> Caroline Frederickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said. “It seems as if he wants to lose.”

<h3>A spokesman for Mr. Reid, Jim Manley called such criticism ridiculous.

“Senator Reid intends to do everything he can to strip immunity from the bill,” Mr. Manley said.</h3>

Even if the Senate does approve a bill that includes immunity, it seems unlikely that such a plan could be signed into law before the Feb. 1 deadline, Congressional officials said.

Because the House has passed a measure that did not include immunity, the issue would first have to go before a conference committee to work out an agreement between the two versions. That could take weeks.

Because of the time problem, Mr. Reid proposed again on Tuesday that the temporary August legislation be extended a month “to allow lawmakers additional time to get this right.”

Republican leaders and the White House oppose that....

DIdn't Harry Reid clearly have the option of selcting for introduction for senate debate, the version of the bill that most closely matched the version passed by the house, the version without immunity for telecoms, the version that would have required sixty votes to add the telecom immunity provision to, instead of the version Reid chose, the one requiring 60 votes to remove the immunity provsion from the bill?

If I have this wrong, and it is not what it seems...please explain, so I can stop making a fool out of myself for accusing majority leader Reid of looking like Cheney's sock puppet, instead of like the head of the senate majority opposing the lawlessness of the Bush administration. Remember, the telecoms were approached and asked to cooperate, outside the law,months BEFORE 9/11.

dc_dux · 01-23-2008, 05:41 AM

Host....I agree with you on Reid.

But I would still make retroactive telcomm immunity a bargaining chip with Republicans for a bill that ensures greater protections and oversight in the future.

I would have to think more about the best way to accomplish that within the framework of the competing Senate bills.

In any case, I think there is a strong likelihood that Dodd will challenge Reid again for majority leader next year, particularly if the Democrats pick up 3-4 seats (from among VA, NH, CO, NM, MN, OR)

With Bush's threatened veto of the House version that does not include tellcom immunity and the Senate debate over the two competing bills, the most likely outcome appears to be an 18 month extension of the Protect America Act (the short term FISA fixed passed last summer).

On further thought (after several hours):
A better alternative would be to just let the temporary Protect America Act expire on Feb.1 and not extend or attempt to amend it, but return to the pre-PAA version of FISA which had explicit requirements for warrants for any surveillance and did not need "fixing".....we simply needed better Congressional and FISA court oversight to ensure compliance by the Executive branch.

aceventura3 · 01-23-2008, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I have less respect for thugs in office and more respect for the rule of law.

Rule of law: Have you ever violated the law? Remembering MLK - he violated a few laws during the civil rights movement, how do you put that into the context of your statement? IMO - violating a bad law for the right reason is a good thing. I would never blindly follow "the rule of law".

On the issue of respect: I respect rattle snakes. Primarily because they can inflict harm, not because I like them.

On the issue of Executive Power and rattle snakes: Hilary Clinton in my opinion will be the next President. She seems to be the kind of woman that will grab a man by his balls and squeeze until he starts singing like a 10 year old in the Vienna Boys Choir.

I respect her, and would expect Republicans to do what needs to be done to make sure she stays in-line. I am betting she will be more aggressive assuming Executive power than Bush and certainly more aggressive than Bill Clinton.

dc_dux · 01-23-2008, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Rule of law: Have you ever violated the law? Remembering MLK - he violated a few laws during the civil rights movement, how do you put that into the context of your statement? IMO - violating a bad law for the right reason is a good thing. I would never blindly follow "the rule of law".

Your comparison is total bullshit.

MLK did not take an oath of office "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Those who take such an oath have a legal and moral obligation that is above and beyond their rights as private citizens to participate in passive resistance to laws they believe are unjust....particularly if that resistance results (by intent or otherwise) in enhancing their own power as an elected official.

Quote:

I am betting she will be more aggressive assuming Executive power than Bush and certainly more aggressive than Bill Clinton.

As I responded earlier with a link to her responses to questions on executive power, you have no basis for this. IMO, its a cheap excuse to rationalize Bush's immoral, unethical and in some cases, illegal behavior.

Tully Mars · 01-23-2008, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am betting she will be more aggressive assuming Executive power than Bush and certainly more aggressive than Bill Clinton.

I completely disagree with you. I think given her statements regarding Bush's excesses she would have a hard time engaging in the same BS.

aceventura3 · 01-23-2008, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Your comparison is total bullshit.

MLK did not take an oath of office "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Those who take such an oath have a legal and moral obligation that is above and beyond their rights as private citizens to participate in passive resistance to laws they believe are unjust.

My point was in response to your morality stance on the "rule of law". You suggested that laws should be followed without question. I disagree.

Quote:

As I responded earlier with a link to her responses to questions on executive power, you have no basis for this. IMO, its a cheap excuse to rationalize Bush's immoral, unethical and in some cases, illegal behavior.

I look at one of her responses from your link:

Quote:

6. Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated to the president himself?

I fundamentally believe that our constitutional system depends upon each branch striving to accommodate the interests of the other, and the President should seek to accommodate legitimate congressional requests for information. I also believe in an open transparent government that fulfills its obligation to share as much information as possible with the public. But it is settled law that certain limited "communications made by presidential advisors in the course of preparing advice for the President, come under the presidential communications privilege, even when these communications are not made directly to the President."

Her view is no different than most Presidents. In fact the Constitution provides no exemption for the Presidency from the legal processes of the other branches. As Clinton states executive privilege in the context above was an assumed power challenged and found in favor of the Presidency.

One area not covered by the source you gave is the use of Executive Agreements. These agreement are made by Presidents acting independently as a national negotiator and commander-in -chief. Dating back to the early 1800 these agreement have been used as instruments of foreign policy bypassing Congress' Constitutional authority to approve international treaties. Again as President, I doubt Ms. Bush would give this power away and strictly adhere to the Constitution. You can keep your head in the sand if you want.

Ironically, FDR used these kinds of agreements more than any President prior to his term.

dc_dux · 01-23-2008, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

My point was in response to your morality stance on the "rule of law". You suggested that laws should be followed without question. I disagree.

ace....nice deflection after your MLK reference was exposed as irrelevant. My morality stance on the "rule of law" throughout this discussion has been directed at the nation's chief elected official, not private citizens....thus, my earlier reference to the oath of office.

The discussion here has NEVER been about a private citizens rights and the rule of law (on that issue, we agree), but rather the legal obligations and limitations of Congress and the president under the Constitution.

Quote:

I look at one of her responses from your link:

Her view is no different than most Presidents.

Again....nice deflection by cherry picking one response. I said earlier that she agreed with Bush on several of the questions...as do I.

Look at all 12 of her responses collectively and make the case that she would be more likely to unilaterally attempt to enhance her own executive powers than Bush as you suggest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3
I am betting she will be more aggressive assuming Executive power than Bush

aceventura3 · 01-23-2008, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....nice deflection after your MLK reference was exposed as irrelevant. My morality stance was directed at a nation's chief elected official....thus, my earlier reference to the oath of office.

The discussion here has NEVER been about a private citizens rights and the rule of law (on that issue, we agree), but rather the legal obligations and limitations of Congress and the president under the Constitution.

How about another deflection. US Presidents on more than 100 occasions have engaged in "military actions" (acts of war) against other nations without seeking Congressional authority for war. This includes former President Clinton. All of these acts could be argued as un-Constitutional and an abuse of Presidential power. Right? Or wrong because if politically you like a President, like let's say Bill Clinton - he gets a pass, is that the way it is? When one politically supports an abuse of executive power it is o.k., but otherwise, like with Bush, it is not?

Quote:

Again....nice deflection by cherry picking one response. I said earlier that she agreed with Bush on several of the questions...as do I.

Look at all 12 of her responses collectively and make the case that she would be more likely to unilaterally attempt to enhance her own executive powers than Bush as you suggest.

O.k., I look at another:

Quote:

2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

The President has the solemn duty to defend our Nation. If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action – including any kind of strategic bombing – against Iran without congressional authorization. That is why I have supported legislation to bar President Bush from doing so and that is also why I think it is irresponsible to suggest, as some have recently, that anything Congress already has enacted provides that authority.

Given her above position, it seems she would be at odds with the actions taken by her husband in 1998 against Iraq. Is she?

Why does she limit her concerns to Bush and Iran? Why not make a blanket statement say she would never to military action without Congressional authority?

What does "truly imminent threat" mean? doesn't that sound like a "Bush lie" that lead us to war in Iraq?

You have to admit the Ms. Clinton chooses her words carefully, an one can easily infer from what she says and what she doesn't say. No doubt she will fight to control as much executive power as possible. In Bush's case, Chaney was the driver on Executive power. In Ms. Clinton's situation she will be the driver on that issue.

Feel free to continue ignoring these great on target points, I have more

{added} I think I got my dates mixed up. Clinton bombed Iraq in 1993. A Sudan aspirin factory in 1998. He bomb others as well, not including interns.{added}

dc_dux · 01-23-2008, 11:03 AM

ace....you crack me up

I have said repeatedly in different ways and on different threads that a president has a legal and moral obligation to abide by his oath of office and "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" and should be held accountable for his actions (that does not necessarily mean impeachment in every case).

I would have applied the same standard to FDR and Nixon as I do to Bush and Hillary.

As I understand your position, you believe its ok for a president to break the law ("spy on a few people," for example) if he believes the law is wrong or unilaterally expand the powers of the Executive branch without consulting or informing the co-equal branches of government.

You can post all the examples of past presidents you want and I can respond with other examples that will clearly show how Bush has unilaterally expanded his powers far more than any past president.

We have a fundamental difference that wont be resolved.

host · 01-23-2008, 11:09 AM

It is clear that neither party is committed to upholding the provisions of the constitution defining our rights we have clearly, for 208 years, not ceded to government authority.

Why is it then, that it is not obvious that a discussion of the appropriatness, and the probable pitfalls, of taking to arms, for the purpose of protecting our bill of rights, ourselves, is not now timely or appropriate?

In chronological order, a diary of ultimatums, postponements, excuses, and finally, accountability is "off the table", in the interests of "bi-partisanship":

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004339.php
U.S. Attorneys Investigation Waits on House Leadership
By Paul Kiel - October 3, 2007, 2:15PM
"The scandal at the Department of Justice has gone on long enough," said Rep. Rahm Emmanuel (D-IL) back in March. "Careers have been destroyed and legitimate public corruption cases have been derailed. It is time for accountability -- it is time for the truth."

Six months and several Department senior resignations later, it's a different time. The urgency is gone.

More than two months after the House Judiciary Committee passed contempt resolutions against White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former counsel Harriet Miers for ignoring committee subpoenas, it's still unclear when, or if, Democrats will hold a vote on the full floor.

The leadership has indefinitely delayed taking up the issue. House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) told The Politico last month, “I don’t think anything is going to happen on that for a while,” and couldn't offer a range. Three weeks later, that hasn't changed.

And apparently scheduling concerns are not all that's at issue. A source familiar with the ongoing discussions told TPMmuckraker that getting the leadership to bring the contempt resolutions to the floor at all is an "uphill struggle."

An aide to the Democratic leadership, however, said that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is "committed" to bringing the votes to the floor. When? That's unclear. "We are working with the judiciary committee, consulting with the leadership and will bring it to the floor when we are ready," the aide said.

As we outlined last month, the contempt resolutions against Miers and Bolten constitute just one piece of the stalled push by Democrats to get information from the White House about the U.S. attorney firings. But no other piece is so near a court clash with the White House, which has so far successfully stonewalled the committee's inquiries. The court battle itself is likely to last many months.

The issue, Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) has argued, goes right to the heart of Congress' oversight prerogatives. After Miers didn't even show up to claim executive privilege, Conyers asked, "Are Congressional subpoenas to be honored or are they optional?... If we do not enforce this subpoena, no one will ever have to come before the House Judiciary Committee again."...

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004573.php
House Dems Moving Towards Contempt Vote
By Paul Kiel - October 26, 2007, 12:32PM
Better late than never. Three weeks ago, we reported that the House leadership seemed to be wavering in its pursuit of contempt citations for White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former counsel Harriet Miers. Both of them, remember, refused to even show up in response to a House Judiciary Committee subpoena relating to the U.S. attorney firings.

But now things seem to be moving along again. The Politico reports that vote counting has begun and quotes a House aide as saying that a vote is likely in the next couple of weeks.

The committee passed the resolutions in July, and once the House votes on them, they would be referred to the U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C. What happens then will be, to say the least, interesting. Michael Mukasey was a noncommittal on that question during his confirmation hearing last week. And the Miers and Bolten contempt citations aren't likely to be the only ones.

The Dems are apparently confident that they could easily pass the resolutions despite no likely Republican crossovers. For his part, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has put the emphasis on institutional integrity, rather than subjecting Harriet Miers to a frog march:

<i>Conyers said the contempt battle was not aimed at seeking criminal sanctions against Bolten and Miers personally, but would nonetheless surely spark a long legal fight over the reach of executive privilege.
“Remember – no handcuffs,” Conyers said in an interview Thursday, noting that contempt of Congress is a misdemeanor.</i>

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004640.php
Conyers Makes White House Final Offer before Contempt Vote
By Paul Kiel - November 5, 2007, 12:31PM
The wheels are once again in motion towards the first court battle between the Democratic Congress and the White House. After a months-long lull, preparations are underway for a vote in the House to find White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former counsel Harriet Miers in contempt of Congress.

Today, House Judiciary Committee Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI) sent his final offer over to White House counsel Fred Fielding (see below). The letter lays out a process where Congressional investigators would get what they want -- documents and testimony concerning the U.S. attorney firings -- while bowing to some White House conditions. But there's a deal breaker in there. And that's Conyers' request for "on-the-record interviews" with current and former White House staffers. Ever since the spring, the White House has refused transcribed interviews, and there's no indication that having dragged out the struggle this long, the adminstration would accept that offer now....

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/005067.php
House Dems to Finally Vote on Contempt for White House Officials
By Paul Kiel - January 14, 2008, 12:47PM
From The Washington Post:

In its first couple of weeks after it returns tomorrow, the House is likely to take up contempt-of-Congress resolutions against White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers for their refusal to appear before Congress for questioning about the 2006 removal of nine U.S. attorneys, Democratic leadership aides said.
For those keeping track at home, it's been nearly six months since the House Judiciary Committee initially approved the contempt citations. As for what the timing might be on the Senate side, where the Senate Judiciary Committee recently approved contempt citations for Karl Rove and Bolten, it's not yet clear

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004701.php
House Dems Push White House Contempt Vote to December
By Paul Kiel - November 14, 2007, 3:12PM
December: a time of carols, sleigh bells, and contempt citations.

The House Democrats were set to hold a vote this Friday on whether to find White House officials in contempt of Congress for ignoring subpoenas related to the U.S. attorney firings investigation, The Politico reports. But no more. The vote, already delayed since July, has been pushed to December, at the earliest. The reason? The Politico quotes a "top House Democratic leadership aide": "[Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-NY)] has been saying that this week is not the time to do this, that it will step on our message on Iraq and FISA."

So at least former White House counsel Harriet Miers, who refused to even show up for a House Judiciary Committee hearing, can enjoy her Thanksgiving. Happy feasting, Harriet!

Quote:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8057.html
Top Dems stall Miers, Bolten contempt vote
By: John Bresnahan
January 23, 2008 07:35 AM EST

House Democrats will postpone votes on criminal contempt citations against White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers, while congressional leaders work with President Bush on a bipartisan stimulus package to fend off an economic downturn, according to party leaders and leadership aides.

Senior Democrats have decided that holding a controversial vote on the contempt citations, which have already been approved by the House Judiciary Committee as part of its investigation into the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, <h3>would “step on their message” of bipartisan unity in the midst of the stimulus package talks.</h3>

Bush, citing executive privilege, has refused to allow Bolten or Miers to testify before the House Judiciary panel about the prosecutor purge. And former deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove was barred by the administration from appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the same issue.

<h3>“Right now, we’re focused on working in a bipartisan fashion on [the] stimulus,”</h3> said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), indicating that the contempt vote is not expected for weeks, depending on how quickly the stimulus package moves.

Brendan Daly, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said “no decision has been made” as to when a criminal contempt vote would be held by the House.

The Judiciary Committee approved contempt citations against Bolten and Miers on July 25, but Pelosi has yet to bring the measures to the floor.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved similar contempt citations against Bolten and Rove shortly before Congress adjourned in December....

aceventura3 · 01-23-2008, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

As I understand your position, you believe its ok for a president to break the law ("spy on a few people," for example) if he believes the law is wrong or unilaterally expand the powers of the Executive branch without consulting or informing the co-equal branches of government.

We have a fundamental difference that wont be resolved.

My position is that Congress has the responsibility to make sure the President does not abuse his power. To the degree that people like you believe Bush abused executive power, I would think you would have a problem with Congress. I expect Presidents to test the limits of their authority.

I don't understand how you or anyone disagree with my position, your rebuttals are not that clear.

View Poll Results: Can you ever envision a scenario where you'd consider violent anti goverment protest
No	5	27.78%
Yes	11	61.11%
If you answered yes, would passage of FISA without objection by Clinton and Obama be a time?	2	11.11%
Voters: 18. You may not vote on this poll

01-19-2008, 05:45 AM	#3 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Congressional leaders who do not support President Bush for partisan reasons have put themselves in a very difficult position. It is politically popular to admonish Bush's policies, but from a practical point of view Bush's policies have not been that far out of line with what has been the right thing to do. Hence, you have votes for war, votes for funding the war, votes for tax cuts, etc., and basically Congress giving Bush almost everything he asks for in the name of fighting terrorism - all while being very vocal against Bush on those policy positions. The leading Democratic Party Presidential candidates will do and say what needs to be done to get the party nomination, but once in office you will find their basic approach to being Commander in Chief will not be much different than Bush. Torture, spying, violations of civil liberties happened before Bush and they will happen after Bush. I am not saying it is right, but it is what it is, and sometimes you have to have the attitude of doing what needs to be done and risking the consequences. If the next President shows weakness and terrorists take advantage of that, the Bush Presidency will serve as a model on how to handle this new form of warfare. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

01-19-2008, 04:14 PM	#6 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace....the difference between us is clear. As you have stated in the past, you think its ok to give the President the benefit of the doubt (and his actions are the "right thing to do" - as you stated above), in the name of national security, when he: * allegedly violates the FISA law as he did for 2+ years by authorizing wiretaps without a warrant and demands immunity for telecomms for their illegal actions during that same period. * issues a signing statement on the Patriot Act that unilaterally overturns the intent of Congress regarding several provisions of the law, including the FBI's use of national security letters * unilaterally interprets US obligations under the Geneva Conventions, without consulting Congress or the Judiciary * allegedly violates the Presidential Records Act by destroying 5,000+ e-mails during the time when the WH was discussion the outing of a CIA operative and the use of intel to justify the invasion of Iraq uses the executive privilege argument to withhold information from Congress resulting from conversations between two EOB aides, when in the past executive privilege has been limited to information/conversations between the President and an aide. I'm not aware that FDR committed similar acts, without at least consulting Congress (your straw man argument) And I still value the separation of powers and checks and balances. My question to you: Would you give Hillary the same benefit of doubt if/when she is President? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 01-19-2008 at 04:44 PM..*

01-22-2008, 06:33 AM	#22 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Dick: We must go to a further extreme than others to stand up for what we believe in George: Fuck yeah....its only a piece of paper....after all, we ARE the president and we want more power! __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 01-22-2008 at 06:48 AM..

01-22-2008, 11:52 AM	#23 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I don't understand what is complicated about the concept of checks and balances. If you have a responsibility to 'check' my behavior in order to maintain a balance and I have that same responsibility to 'check' your behavior - then if one of us fails in fulfilling our responsibility to 'check' the other, who is at fault? I guess you would say the one who took advantage of the one 'asleep at the wheel'. I would say the one 'asleep at the wheel' is at fault. If Congress has allowed Bush to make a mockery of the Constitution and civil liberties I have a problem with Congress. However, for the record I don't think Bush has made a mockery of the Constitution, the civil liberties of some have been violated but not to the degree where it would be worthy of impeachment or the descriptive term "mockery". In-fact like I said before I would have taken many of the same actions Bush has given the circumstances. I can also separate my political views on an action taken by a President from the intent or motivation for an action taken by a President. Therefore I clearly understand the actions considered unconstitutional taken by a president like FDR even if I disagree with those actions politically. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

01-18-2008, 06:22 AM	#2 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Host, it takes several decades for any kind of real historical consensus to form about any particular president. There are still reassessments of Eisenhower going on, fercrissakes, and we have had 50 years to digest his impact. We're now seeing some revisions among historians about even FDR. Truman is generally viewed positively by historians, but as you know, he declined to run for re-election in 1952 because most of the country thought he was a disaster. This is a long way of saying it's way too early to speculate about history's verdict on GWB. We'll need at least 20-30 years of seeing how things turned out before we can make any real assessments, and even then they'll be tentative. Then again, I'm one of those guys who think Zachary Taylor is very underrated as a president, and JFK vastly overrated. It also strikes me, looking at American history, how overall lucky we have been in the people who have ended up leading the country. It hasn't been uniform, but for the most part we have had genuinely talented and conscientious people as Presidents. The bad presidents have been more of the "nonentity" variety than the evil variety.

01-20-2008, 03:51 AM	#8 (permalink)
scout Psycho	OMG I voted with host on this one.... Despite all their promises to the contrary the democrats have done since taking control of both houses but rubber stamp a lame duck president's intrusive policies. This country truly needs a viable third party.

01-20-2008, 07:18 AM	#12 (permalink)
scout Psycho	It takes 60 votes to get something passed in the Senate, can you name something they democrats actually stopped rather than name something they failed to pass? If it takes shutting down the government to prevent any further losses of our constitutional rights don't you think it would be worth it? I think the Democrats failed to grasp it wasn't an anti-war vote in 2006 that allowed them to take control of both houses but rather a anti-Patriot Act and a gluttonous out of control Republican party that gave the majority to the Democrats. Instead of at least attempting to impeach Bush for lying about Iraq and locking the government down for a couple years until we could get real change in the oval office they attempted a bunch of anti-war and other crap that didn't fly and became really confused as to what the hell we sent them there for. They are still confused and spewing two year old rhetoric. Here's a clue, Americans want real change and not business as usual. Most Americans prefer the war to be fought across the pond rather than in our back yard. Most Americans want an economic package that includes some good paying manufacturing and high tech jobs. Most Americans are bewildered at the size of our governments debt load and we don't want to be taxed to death to pay it down. If that means downsizing the government and giving up a few government gimmes so be it. We realize there has to be taxes and we just want everyone to pay their fair share, no more no less. We don't want to have to prop up the economy by swapping houses and being able to get loans we can't afford. We want clean reusable energy and if that means we inconvenience, not obliterate, a few bugs, bats and other mammals in the process so be it. We gotta do what we have to do to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. Most Americans are Christians and we would like a little morality in our government and by everyone in public places. Like it or not this country was founded by Christians on Christian values and most Americans like it that way. What you do in your own home we really don't give a damn but please quit trying to push this free for all do anything you want where ever you want way far left twist down our throats. And most of all we want our personal freedoms back and a check on big brother and if that means locking down government for a year or two until we get it back so be it. I could go on and on but I won't, it's useless. Now you all can slam me and post your thousand links to disprove everything I've said and I don't care. Which ever party finally figures it out and gets their collective heads out of their asses before November will probably be the one that takes the oval office this year.

01-22-2008, 12:18 PM	#24 (permalink)
host Banned	ace, I gave you a good explanation, in post #8, here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=121564 ...as to why Mr. Bush cannot be trusted concerning staying within the framework of the FISA law, you never replied. Post #1 in that thread, illustrates why none of Mr. Bush's statements can be trusted, although you disagreed...

01-22-2008, 12:40 PM	#25 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this thread. It seems like dc_dux is channeling me. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

01-22-2008, 02:45 PM	#28 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I think you understand. I disagree with Chavez's politics, but I respect him. He the kind of guy that has no hidden agenda, he speaks and acts with clarity. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

01-22-2008, 02:57 PM	#29 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace....I understand. I have less respect for thugs in office and more respect for the rule of law. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

01-23-2008, 05:41 AM	#31 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Host....I agree with you on Reid. But I would still make retroactive telcomm immunity a bargaining chip with Republicans for a bill that ensures greater protections and oversight in the future. I would have to think more about the best way to accomplish that within the framework of the competing Senate bills. In any case, I think there is a strong likelihood that Dodd will challenge Reid again for majority leader next year, particularly if the Democrats pick up 3-4 seats (from among VA, NH, CO, NM, MN, OR) With Bush's threatened veto of the House version that does not include tellcom immunity and the Senate debate over the two competing bills, the most likely outcome appears to be an 18 month extension of the Protect America Act (the short term FISA fixed passed last summer). On further thought (after several hours): A better alternative would be to just let the temporary Protect America Act expire on Feb.1 and not extend or attempt to amend it, but return to the pre-PAA version of FISA which had explicit requirements for warrants for any surveillance and did not need "fixing".....we simply needed better Congressional and FISA court oversight to ensure compliance by the Executive branch. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 01-23-2008 at 09:54 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

01-23-2008, 11:03 AM	#38 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace....you crack me up I have said repeatedly in different ways and on different threads that a president has a legal and moral obligation to abide by his oath of office and "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" and should be held accountable for his actions (that does not necessarily mean impeachment in every case). I would have applied the same standard to FDR and Nixon as I do to Bush and Hillary. As I understand your position, you believe its ok for a president to break the law ("spy on a few people," for example) if he believes the law is wrong or unilaterally expand the powers of the Executive branch without consulting or informing the co-equal branches of government. You can post all the examples of past presidents you want and I can respond with other examples that will clearly show how Bush has unilaterally expanded his powers far more than any past president. We have a fundamental difference that wont be resolved. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 01-23-2008 at 11:10 AM..