Bush and Free Speech - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Zeld2.0 · 01-19-2004, 12:02 AM

*shrug* i've always taken the amendments and the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and IMO, no one should be allowed to change it as they see fit or make excuses or what not - and personally I find free-zones pretty frightening.

not to mention Secret Service as SS lol!

hammer4all · 01-19-2004, 03:27 AM

Two more articles:

Free Speech Kept Off US Streets

Bush Makes Protesters 'Disappear'

onetime2 · 01-19-2004, 06:33 AM

I'm not clear how this differs from the practice of approving a route for protests that is done throughout the country in cities and towns alike. When you apply for a permit to hold a rally, you basically say where you want to do it and often the city/town then tells you where you can do it.

While I don't understand the reasons behind Bush's policy on this, I don't see it as hurting free speech. The protestors are allowed to say whatever they want they just aren't allowed to do it whereever they want.

Not that I support the abortion protesters, but are they not also made to stay a certain distance away from the clinics they are protesting?

mystix · 01-19-2004, 07:20 AM

there is a bushisamoron.com. need i say more?

Ustwo · 01-19-2004, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mystix
there is a bushisamoron.com. need i say more?

You said nothing, so yes.

Astrocloud · 01-19-2004, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mystix
there is a bushisamoron.com. need i say more?

Better not say that near one of Dumya's motorcade's or you could be thrown in prison.

Conclamo Ludus · 01-19-2004, 09:00 AM

Putting the protestors and/or supporters in one area wouldn't bother me, what bothers me is that the press is not allowed in or out. I find that pretty disturbing if it is true.

Superbelt · 01-19-2004, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
I'm not clear how this differs from the practice of approving a route for protests that is done throughout the country in cities and towns alike. When you apply for a permit to hold a rally, you basically say where you want to do it and often the city/town then tells you where you can do it.

While I don't understand the reasons behind Bush's policy on this, I don't see it as hurting free speech. The protestors are allowed to say whatever they want they just aren't allowed to do it whereever they want.

Not that I support the abortion protesters, but are they not also made to stay a certain distance away from the clinics they are protesting?

That is a completely different situation. I have been a part in the decision making process in approving routes for protests. We do not plan the routes as a way of keeping protests away from the activity or person. We approve the routes to keep from disrupting traffic and to keep the protesters and motorists from the imminenty physical harm of the interaction of high speed cars and masses of people.

As was said by the Secret Service people, he could have stayed if he dropped his sign. There is no more proof needed that his freedom of expression was stifled.

onetime2 · 01-19-2004, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
That is a completely different situation. I have been a part in the decision making process in approving routes for protests. We do not plan the routes as a way of keeping protests away from the activity or person. We approve the routes to keep from disrupting traffic and to keep the protesters and motorists from the imminenty physical harm of the interaction of high speed cars and masses of people.

As was said by the Secret Service people, he could have stayed if he dropped his sign. There is no more proof needed that his freedom of expression was stifled.

Sorry but the way that you approve routes is not the same across the country. Routes have been modified so they do not pass through certain areas, in front of certain buildings, etc.

And what of the abortion protesters? Are they not told the same thing? Are you concerned with their rights being infringed upon?

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-19-2004, 10:29 AM

Abortion protesters are evil fundamentalist Christians. So naturally they get arrested for racketering laws and are constantly subjected to double jeopardy.

Astrocloud · 01-19-2004, 10:57 AM

Actually Anti-Choice activists are usually infringing on other people's rights. Removing Bush protesters from his view during his limo rides is a completely different matter. If you don't see the difference -you are just being obstinate.

I'm honestly suprised that no Bush Apologist has supported the president on the grounds that he is infallible and can do no wrong. Don't you support the President?

onetime2 · 01-19-2004, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Astrocloud
Actually Anti-Choice activists are usually infringing on other people's rights. Removing Bush protesters from his view during his limo rides is a completely different matter. If you don't see the difference -you are just being obstinate.

I'm honestly suprised that no Bush Apologist has supported the president on the grounds that he is infallible and can do no wrong. Don't you support the President?

Both groups are being told where they can express their opinions. Instead of discussing the topic at hand you call me obstinate and avoid any explanation.

I won't even go into the ridiculous assertion that "Anti-Choice Activists are usually infringing on other people's rights." Trying to justify the treatment of all based on the actions of a few is patently wrong.

nanofever · 01-19-2004, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Abortion protesters are evil fundamentalist Christians. So naturally they get arrested for racketering laws and are constantly subjected to double jeopardy.

I'm glad to see that you are coming around to the rational side of the pond mojo.

Astrocloud · 01-19-2004, 11:12 AM

You are being obstinate. Anti-Choice activists are blocking access to clinics -that's why they are prevented from "protesting" how they want.

Anti-Bush protestors are just holding signs on the side of the road while Dumya drives by. There is a HUGE difference between the two forms of "speech". The anti-choice fanatics are not exercising a form a speech so much as preventing others from exercising the rights they have over their own bodies.

onetime2 · 01-19-2004, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Astrocloud
You are being obstinate. Anti-Choice activists are blocking access to clinics -that's why they are prevented from "protesting" how they want.

Anti-Bush protestors are just holding signs on the side of the road while Dumya drives by. There is a HUGE difference between the two forms of "speech". The anti-choice fanatics are not exercising a form a speech so much as preventing others from exercising the rights they have over their own bodies.

First off, you are being rude by calling me names, if you can't be civil, don't post. Second off, they were removed from protesting near the clinics because they created an unfriendly atmosphere not because they physically stopped people from accessing the property.

If you refuse to believe that these "fanatics" as you label them are exercising their rights to free speech, as verified by the courts, then there's no sense in even continuing this discussion. You have failed to convince me that the cases are even slightly different.

Astrocloud · 01-19-2004, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
[B]First off, you are being rude by calling me names,

What names? If I offend you I appologize. I called Bush a name or two but I have not directed any names at you.

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Second off, they were removed from protesting near the clinics because they created an unfriendly atmosphere not because they physically stopped people from accessing the property.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blface.htm

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
If you refuse to believe that these "fanatics" as you label them are exercising their rights to free speech, as verified by the courts, then there's no sense in even continuing this discussion. You have failed to convince me that the cases are even slightly different.

It's not my refusal to believe. It's their expressed tactic to "save babies".

Finally, I noticed that you once again are trying to change the subject when a topic isn't going the way you want.

Give someone the benefit of the doubt and just read the facts as they are. Don't give it your usual "Bush can do no wrong" spin and just admit that Bush is crossing the line in prohibiting free speech.

onetime2 · 01-19-2004, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Astrocloud
What names? If I offend you I appologize. I called Bush a name or two but I have not directed any names at you.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blface.htm

It's not my refusal to believe. It's their expressed tactic to "save babies".

Finally, I noticed that you once again are trying to change the subject when a topic isn't going the way you want.

Give someone the benefit of the doubt and just read the facts as they are. Don't give it your usual "Bush can do no wrong" spin and just admit that Bush is crossing the line in prohibiting free speech.

Rather than debate your obvious name calling, let's focus on your post.

The Supreme Court language explicitly states "through force or the threat of force" which is absolutely consistent with my posts.

I have not attempted to change the subject in the least. I pointed to other established instances where protesters are told where they can exercise their freedom of speech rights. If you'd like another one, how about entering a court room where a trial is in progress? Certainly you could not begin shouting "No blood for oil" or the like without being forced to leave or put in jail.

I have in many cases said that Bush is wrong, so I have no "Bush can do no wrong" mantra. How many times have you pointed to something Bush did right?

I have simply read the facts as they are. That reading lead me to break it down into the fact that protesters are being told where they can protest. From that fact I equated the action to other well known cases where the same action was taken. I have remained absolutely loyal to the subject, but because it doesn't agree with your opinions you seem to think I have violated the "rules" of the discussion.

Lebell · 01-19-2004, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Rather than debate your obvious name calling, let's focus on your post....

.... I have remained absolutely loyal to the subject, but because it doesn't agree with your opinions you seem to think I have violated the "rules" of the discussion.

Great, you're both not name calling, you're both on topic.

Now let it go and move on.

Astrocloud · 01-19-2004, 12:08 PM

See there you go again. Giving up all logical discussion you tell me what my opinion is and then argue against that. For your information "obstinate" is not a name. It's a condition and I'm curious why you think it doesn't apply to you. I can be obstinate at times -as can every human being.

The whacked out "Save the Baby" abortion protestors blocking access to abortion clinics is in no way like someone who holds a sign near Bush's limo route.

The idea that people can't make a shouting protest in court is weak. You also can't post a political sign in my front yard without my say so. The Bush protestors are protesting in public places. Every point you've made thus far indicates that you are unfamiliar with these issues.

Why don't you support Bush here and say that people who protest against him should be in jail. I think that's a better tactic and far more defensible than the "I just don't see it" defense.

Oh yeah and since you asked "How many times have you pointed to something Bush did right?" I'll tell you. I support the action on Iraq. But then I supported Clinton when he needed to go into Iraq and didn't get any support from the Republican dominated congress.

onetime2 · 01-19-2004, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Astrocloud
See there you go again. Giving up all logical discussion you tell me what my opinion is and then argue against that. For your information "obstinate" is not a name. It's a condition and I'm curious why you think it doesn't apply to you. I can be obstinate at times -as can every human being.

At the risk of being chastised by lebell for this clarification, there is no place in a rational discourse for someone to label the other conversant as being obstinate. It does nothing to further the conversation. I have my belief and you have yours. Just as I would not tell someone that they're being pig headed if they held a belief that differs from mine, I would expect the same from them.

The parades I discussed were done in public places, the sidewalks of cities are public places, court rooms are public places, your front yard is private property.

In no way have I said that the people who protest against Bush should be in jail I have only said that relocating them does not violate their ability to speak freely.

Sparhawk · 01-19-2004, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
I have only said that relocating them does not violate their ability to speak freely.

But it does violate their ability to speak freely, if they are only allowed to speak freely in these orwellian "free-speech" zones...

hammer4all · 01-19-2004, 01:57 PM

I thought this was fitting:

Astrocloud · 01-19-2004, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
At the risk of being chastised by lebell for this clarification, there is no place in a rational discourse for someone to label the other conversant as being obstinate. It does nothing to further the conversation. I have my belief and you have yours. Just as I would not tell someone that they're being pig headed if they held a belief that differs from mine, I would expect the same from them.

No, you're wrong. The place "within rational context" is where I am not only debating you -I am pointing out the shortcomings of your position to others. Not that others need that much convincing on your positions inherent weakness -because you are (deliberately or accidentally) obfuscating the issues (more on that later).

Right now it seems that you can’t take any criticism without feigning injury. I assert that this is a tactic in order to shut people up who don’t agree with you. True or not –it seems conspicuous so perhaps you should develop thicker skin when it comes to accepting criticism.

It’s not that your beliefs are different from mine. In this case they are outright wrong. Think: “what if Clinton did something like this” –Would you be outraged? If the answer is no –then you are not being honest. This policy of stifling political criticism goes beyond petty personal politics and affects the future of the United States. I’m honestly surprised that more Bush Apologists haven’t thought about it. What if the next Democrat in office did something like this?

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
The parades I discussed were done in public places, the sidewalks of cities are public places, court rooms are public places, your front yard is private property.

In no way have I said that the people who protest against Bush should be in jail I have only said that relocating them does not violate their ability to speak freely.

I’ve quite literally spent hours in a graduate level class studying the first amendment. What you seem to “not get” is that content is not subject to censorship. Context is. So when someone ‘shouts fire in a crowded public theater’ in order to create an unreasonable panic –this context is restricted. When someone shouts fire and there is a fire –then the context is unrestricted. This also goes for parades and court rooms etc. If you honestly need help understanding this then I suggest you read a good book on Constitutional Law instead of obfuscating the issue here. It is tricky and there are lots of ‘ins and outs’ to it. Furthermore, Astrocloud does not necessarily have all the answers on hand. I suggest you educate yourself.

The bottom line is that Bush is very clearly and deliberately censoring people. As pointed out in the article the protest zones are not places where the media is allowed to visit. This is a clear violation of the first amendment. Dissenting citizens ARE going to jail for it. These are the facts.

madp · 01-19-2004, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
I'm not clear how this differs from the practice of approving a route for protests that is done throughout the country in cities and towns alike. When you apply for a permit to hold a rally, you basically say where you want to do it and often the city/town then tells you where you can do it.

While I don't understand the reasons behind Bush's policy on this, I don't see it as hurting free speech. The protestors are allowed to say whatever they want they just aren't allowed to do it whereever they want.

Not that I support the abortion protesters, but are they not also made to stay a certain distance away from the clinics they are protesting?

You nailed it: noone's free speech is being curtailed by this.

I was actually in SF over the summer and walked through one of the protests. . . only to see organizers of the anti-war protest attempting to rope off and intimidate a group of Zionist counter-protesters to the point where one guy was getting physical and a SF cop told him he was going to get arrested if he laid a hand on the counter-protesters. So, in my opinion, this is a bogus complaint that cuts both ways.

The Patriot Act, on the other hand, is a scary thing. I don't know of anyone who can give a satisfactory explanation of all of its implications. One things for sure: I'm not getting a tan or growning a long beard any time soon.

lordjeebus · 01-19-2004, 03:41 PM

For those who think the practice of quarantining protesters from the public spaces where they wish to protest on the basis of their political position, I have some questions.

1. Would it be all right for the Secret Service to designate a county of Vermont as the free speech zone for the nation and demand that all who wish to protest the President's policies in public do so in that area? (those that support the President would still be allowed to demonstrate this support in any public area)

2. If not, why not? What is the difference, if it is all right to relocate protesters 1/3 of a mile from where they seek to be? Is it simply distance? If so, where do we draw the line? If not, what else is there?

milkyp · 01-19-2004, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lordjeebus
For those who think the practice of quarantining protesters from the public spaces where they wish to protest on the basis of their political position, I have some questions.

1. Would it be all right for the Secret Service to designate a county of Vermont as the free speech zone for the nation and demand that all who wish to protest the President's policies in public do so in that area? (those that support the President would still be allowed to demonstrate this support in any public area)

2. If not, why not? What is the difference, if it is all right to relocate protesters 1/3 of a mile from where they seek to be? Is it simply distance? If so, where do we draw the line? If not, what else is there?

It would be alright for them to do that if it involves the safety of the president.

If it doesn't, than of course not...that's not what the SS is for.

I chose to ignore the "(those that support the President would still be allowed to demonstrate this support in any public area)" because it is biased and has nothing to do with the argument, since it was already shown that people from both sides were placed into the area.

lordjeebus · 01-19-2004, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lordjeebus
For those who think the practice of quarantining protesters from the public spaces where they wish to protest on the basis of their political position, I have some questions.

1. Would it be all right for the Secret Service to designate a county of Vermont as the free speech zone for the nation and demand that all who wish to protest the President's policies in public do so in that area? (those that support the President would still be allowed to demonstrate this support in any public area)

2. If not, why not? What is the difference, if it is all right to relocate protesters 1/3 of a mile from where they seek to be? Is it simply distance? If so, where do we draw the line? If not, what else is there?

Allow me to clarify what I'm going for -- I'm addressing those who have said that freedom of speech is not infringed when someone is denied the right to speak in a particular place based on what they want to say, because they are still able to say what they want to say somewhere else.

onetime2 · 01-19-2004, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Astrocloud
No, you're wrong. The place "within rational context" is where I am not only debating you -I am pointing out the shortcomings of your position to others. Not that others need that much convincing on your positions inherent weakness -because you are (deliberately or accidentally) obfuscating the issues (more on that later).

Right now it seems that you can’t take any criticism without feigning injury. I assert that this is a tactic in order to shut people up who don’t agree with you. True or not –it seems conspicuous so perhaps you should develop thicker skin when it comes to accepting criticism.

It’s not that your beliefs are different from mine. In this case they are outright wrong. Think: “what if Clinton did something like this” –Would you be outraged? If the answer is no –then you are not being honest. This policy of stifling political criticism goes beyond petty personal politics and affects the future of the United States. I’m honestly surprised that more Bush Apologists haven’t thought about it. What if the next Democrat in office did something like this?

I’ve quite literally spent hours in a graduate level class studying the first amendment. What you seem to “not get” is that content is not subject to censorship. Context is. So when someone ‘shouts fire in a crowded public theater’ in order to create an unreasonable panic –this context is restricted. When someone shouts fire and there is a fire –then the context is unrestricted. This also goes for parades and court rooms etc. If you honestly need help understanding this then I suggest you read a good book on Constitutional Law instead of obfuscating the issue here. It is tricky and there are lots of ‘ins and outs’ to it. Furthermore, Astrocloud does not necessarily have all the answers on hand. I suggest you educate yourself.

The bottom line is that Bush is very clearly and deliberately censoring people. As pointed out in the article the protest zones are not places where the media is allowed to visit. This is a clear violation of the first amendment. Dissenting citizens ARE going to jail for it. These are the facts.

Keep telling yourself that rational discourse includes labeling someone obstinate when their first post disagrees with you and they maintain that position in the face of the counter argument of "because they're different". The issue has not been muddied in the least by my points. They are perfectly within the bounds of the discussion. If Clinton had done this I would hold the same position, whether you want to believe it or not. I haven't talked about Bush's involvement at all, only the practice itself so trying to make this about Clinton vs Bush is weak.

Since it's obvious that you have no desire to carry on a real discourse that could serve to offer perspectives I haven't considered or acknowledge the fact that there are legitimate points of view that disagree with yours there's no need for us to continue this line of discussion.

Astrocloud · 01-19-2004, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
there's no need for us to continue this line of discussion.

Last words of one who has lost an argument.

lurkette · 01-19-2004, 05:45 PM

Behave, folks.....

Astrocloud · 01-19-2004, 05:51 PM

From the conclusion of the Senate Investigative Committee entitled
"Senate Panel Examines Administration’s Use Of USA PATRIOT Act And Erosion Of Civil Liberties"

Quote:

The Administration has attempted to defend its unprecedented levels of secrecy and unaccountability by repeatedly citing 9/11 and terrorism. But their own actions threaten to erode the very liberty and democracy that the terrorists are attacking.

The civil liberties entrusted to each generation of Americans are ours to defend, but they belong not only to us but to every generation that follows. We are benefactors of the freedoms we have inherited, but we are also their stewards. Our children and grandchildren will look back to see whether we were diligent when we were tested, or whether we were silent. Others around the world, including, right now, the people of Iraq, will also take note of how vigilant we are in defending the freedoms of our own democracy.

Our civil liberties were hard won, but they are easy to lose. And once we give them away, they are difficult to reclaim. Benjamin Franklin said those who would trade their freedom for security deserve neither.

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200311/111803.html

onetime2 · 01-19-2004, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Astrocloud
Last words of one who has lost an argument.

Yep that's it.

Lebell · 01-19-2004, 10:42 PM

OOOO,

Lurkette steps in with that sexay woman powa!

Anyway, onetime2 and Astrocloud,

You obviously aren't going to agree, and you've obviously stopped listening (so the other believes) so the both of you should step away from the discussion (about a 7 on the civility scale, not to bad, but not perfect) and call it a day.

onetime2 · 01-20-2004, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
OOOO,

Lurkette steps in with that sexay woman powa!

Anyway, onetime2 and Astrocloud,

You obviously aren't going to agree, and you've obviously stopped listening (so the other believes) so the both of you should step away from the discussion (about a 7 on the civility scale, not to bad, but not perfect) and call it a day.

It's already done.

Astrocloud · 01-20-2004, 11:51 AM

Here are some excerpts from Supreme Court Rulings related to the topic at hand i.e. the zoning of Free Speech to certain areas

Quote:

Whatever differences may exist about interpretations of the First Amendment, there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs. This of course includes discussions of candidates, structures and forms of government, the manner in which government is operated or should be operated, and all such matters relating to political processes.

MILLS v. ALABAMA, 384 U.S. 214 (1966)

Quote:

In order to secure the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and to prevent distortions of "the market-place of ideas," see Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting), governments generally are prohibited from discriminating among viewpoints on issues [460 U.S. 37, 72] within the realm of protected speech. In this case the Board has infringed the respondents' First Amendment rights by granting exclusive access to an effective channel of communication to the petitioner and denying such access to the respondents. In view of the petitioner's failure to establish even a substantial state interest that is advanced by the exclusive-access policy, the policy must be held to be constitutionally infirm.

PERRY ED. ASSN. v. PERRY LOCAL EDUCATORS' ASSN., 460 U.S. 37 (1983)

I should also note that the Supreme Court has upheld lower circuit courts decisions repeatedly such as Brister v. Faulkner, 214 F.3d 675, where students involved with a Texas Green party were found passing out leaflets in violation of their Universities "Free Speech Zone" policy. The fifth circuit threw out the case against the students outright on first amendment grounds.

(Findlaw is not free for lower court decisions -so no link.)

The bottom line is that Bush's policy is in clear violation of the first amendment. He is blatently overstepping the bounds of the constitution which guarantees a citizen's right to freedom of expression. Does anyone find it a coincidence that he is quelling dissent against himself?

prb · 01-22-2004, 06:54 AM

Not only are Bush's critics being deprived of their First Amendment rights to free speech, but also being deprived of their right under the same amendment to " peaceably assemble".

This is so unAmerican. Nixon wishes he had thought of this.

Astrocloud · 01-22-2004, 11:51 AM

I'm very thankful that there are Republicans in Congress and the Senate who still believe in this country enough not to renew the Patriot Act. Dumya's act grants him king-like status and it disturbs me that his apologists are unbothered.

Quote:

Senior lawmakers and their aides from both houses and both sides of the aisle told United Press International Wednesday that it was unlikely Congress would leave the law intact and permanent.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...1-072910-4598r

Ustwo · 01-22-2004, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Astrocloud
I'm very thankful that there are Republicans in Congress and the Senate who still believe in this country enough not to renew the Patriot Act. Dumya's act grants him king-like status and it disturbs me that his apologists are unbothered.

Unbothered? I'm very bothered that you are so flipant about the security of the US. When the next terrorist attack happens in the US, and if its a republican president I'm sure you and people like you will be the first to whine he didn't do enough.

Astrocloud · 01-22-2004, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Unbothered? I'm very bothered that you are so flipant about the security of the US. When the next terrorist attack happens in the US, and if its a republican president I'm sure you and people like you will be the first to whine he didn't do enough.

I realize that this is another attempt at a red herring. Anything to stop someone from criticizing Dumya.

Just tell me where exactly that the founding fathers intended for citizens to be arrested and not charged? When did the Founding Fathers say that the First amendment doesn't apply to political opposition?

You are pretty flippant about our lost liberties.

Astrocloud · 01-23-2004, 07:51 AM

Here's a large article but really, really good

Quote:

The U.S. Supreme Court and The Imperial Presidency
How President Bush Is Testing the Limits of His Presidential Powers
by John Dean

Friday, Jan. 16, 2004

Can the President of the United States arrest any American he suspects of being a terrorist and toss him in a military brig, deny him a lawyer, omit to bring any charges against him -- yet indefinitely keep him imprisoned nonetheless?

Can the President kidnap foreigners charged with violating federal law, and bring them to the United States to stand trial? How about Osama bin Laden, for starters?

These are only a few of the issues raised by cases now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court that will examine the limits of presidential powers. As David Savage, the legal writer for the Los Angeles Times, has noted, this is a remarkable collection of cases.

"[T]he justices have voted to take up five cases that test the president's power to act alone and without interference from Congress or the courts," Savage explains. The description of these cases, as Savage has ably summarized them, is startling: "They involve imprisoning foreign fighters at overseas bases, holding American citizens without charges in military brigs, preserving the secrecy of White House meetings, enforcing free-trade treaties despite environmental concerns, and abducting foreigners charged with U.S. crimes."

What the Supreme Court has placed on its agenda, in short, is the Imperial Presidency -- that is, the Presidency in which the Executive largely acts alone, pushing the Constitution to the limits and beyond. And how the Justices deal with this overwhelmingly important topic could affect the reelection prospects of the Bush presidency, for, as David Savage notes, at least four of the five rulings are anticipated to be handed down during the summer of 2004 -- right in the middle of the presidential campaign.

The High Court and Nixon's Imperial Presidency

Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s The Imperial Presidency gave the term its currency. He traces its growth from George Washington to Richard Nixon, showing how a presidency never contemplated by the founders has evolved. As a basis for their authority, presidents typically cited their role as commander-in-chief -- an undefined constitutional term -- and "inherited powers" other presidents had used before them.

After Nixon pushed the presidential powers even further than past presidents had, both the Congress and Supreme Court acted to curtail his activities. In the name of protecting national security, Nixon wanted to be able to wiretap without the approval of a judge. The authority for this power? Before the Court of Appeals, Nixon relied on a vague "historical power of the sovereign to preserve itself" and "the inherent power of the President to safeguard the security of the nation."

Later, arguing the issue before the Supreme Court, the government got even more vague -- just loosely using the national security contention. In the end, the Court -- in the ironically named case United States v. United States Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (which became known as the Keith Case) -- said no. Joining the opinion were all of Nixon's own appointees -- except William Rehnquist, who recused himself.

In another Supreme Court case, New York Times Co. v. United States, Nixon also tried, but failed to get the Supreme Court to extend Executive powers. Then, Nixon's government sought an order blocking publication of the Pentagon Papers. It claimed the release of the classified documents that had been leaked to The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other newspapers, could harm national security. Again, Nixon lost.

Then, in United States v. Nixon , Nixon resisted turning over to the Watergate Special Prosecutor his taped conversations. He asserted his implied authority to invoke "executive privilege." But once again, he lost: It was the Supreme Court's unanimous decision that the privilege did not protect the tapes, when a grand jury had sought the information. This ruling, of course, ended Nixon's presidency.

After Nixon had departed, the Supreme Court also addressed Nixon's effort to impound federal funds -- to not spend money that Congress had appropriated. Nixon claimed he was only doing as his predecessors had done (albeit a bit more aggressively than they had). But the Court again unanimously ruled against him. It held that the president had exceeded his constitutional authority.

In short, at the zenith of the Imperial Presidency era, the Supreme Court consistently ruled in such a way as to pull the presidency back into Constitutional balance with the other branches. Its rulings were wise, for the alternative would have been to allow presidential power to burgeon, at the expense of the balance of power with the Legislative and Judicial branches.

Bush's Imperial Presidency?

Not inaccurately, the Bush presidency has been called imperial, in Schlesinger's sense. The evidence? Its "preemptive" and "preventive" military policy, its contentions that it can go to war regardless of whether Congress approves, its policies calling for American world domination, and its unprecedented blending of national security policy and domestic law enforcement. In my view, these policies and positions not only easily establish the Bush presidency as imperial, they also rank it beyond anything in the annals of the modern American presidency. This may be the most imperial Presidency our history has yet seen.

I've spoken with Arthur Schlesinger about it -- asking him if he thought the Bush presidency fit his description of an imperial presidency. In response, he chuckled, and said, "I'd certainly say this is an imperial presidency."

The fact that five cases currently before the Supreme Court address the question of presidential powers -- and whether or not the Bush presidency has exceeded them -- speaks for itself. Bush has had almost twice as many such cases before the Court as Nixon had, in half the time.

The new level of exertion of presidential authority is a combination of the circumstances following 9/11, the war on terrorism, and Vice President Dick Cheney's long held views on executive power. Accordingly, these are hardly small issues with this presidency. In fact, they are precisely the issues that will be an integral part of the debate during the presidential campaign.

Democrats, and many Republicans, believe that Bush and Cheney have pushed too far, taken too many liberties, and far exceeded the constitutional boundaries -- many of them defined by these cases. For that reason, it is difficult to suggest a collection of cases, over our history, that were more likely to have a political impact -- whichever way the Supreme Court rules.

Stated more bluntly: Rulings for Bush will help him politically. Conversely, holdings against him will show a president who is operating outside the Constitution.

Will the Supreme Court Place Checks on the Bush Presidency?

Predicting Supreme Court rulings is a tricky business. Yet it is clear that the current Court is more center-to-conservative than the Court that checked Nixon's activity. And when members of the Court start thinking about leaving the high bench -- and several on this Court have been mulling that for some time -- they also think about who will be in the White House to select their successor.

Without dissecting the legal matters at issue in each of these cases -- all with their own complexes and nuances -- at this time, it is not possible to know how the Court will rule. Some pundits claim, however, that the recent ruling of the Court not to review the case of
Center for National Security Studies v. Justice Department is a favorable omen for the Administration.

There, the court rejected a petition, joined by twenty-three news organizations, that it should hear a high profile case involving First Amendment and Freedom of Information Act issues. The result was to allow the government -- specifically, the Justice Department -- to continue to withhold the names and other details about the hundreds of Muslims and other Middle Eastern men rounded up, and detained (even abused, according to the Justice Department's Inspector General's report) after 9/11.

.

The pundits have suggested that this denial of review shows that the Bush administration is correct to be confident that it will win the executive power cases before the Court. But frankly, I don't believe anything can be read into a decision of the Supreme Court not to review any case, even this one.

For one thing, the issues in Center for National Security Studies are quite distinct from the issues in the other pending executive authority cases. Second, as with virtually all denials of review, no one outside the Court can really understand why Justices turned down the case. Those pundits who claim otherwise are thus off the mark.

The Executive Power Cases the Court Will Hear Soon

As I noted at the start of this column, it has been three decades since the Court will have tackled such important presidential power questions -- with such potential political implications for a presidential race. For that reason, the five cases that raise these questions should be on the radar screen of all president -- and Supreme Court -- watchers.

The cases are:

Sealed Case.A case so secret it does not appear on the Court's docket, and the Solicitor General simply refers to it as "this matter … that is required to be kept under seal." In fact, it is not all that secret. It involves Mohamed Kamel Baellahouel, who wants the Court to rule on whether he was improperly secretly jailed. The government want to argue its case in secret. But some twenty news organizations are opposing this extreme secrecy.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. This case raises the rights of an American citizen -- Yaser Hamdi -- who was captured overseas and held in the United States as an "enemy combatant." Hamdi was arrested in Afghanistan.
Rasul v. Bush, and Al Odah v. United States. These cases address the habeas corpus rights of aliens detained at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The government is maintaining that these aliens do not have the right to file habeas corpus petitions in U.S. federal courts.
Padilla v. Rumsfeld. This case involves Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who is being held indefinitely, in a military prison, as an "enemy combatant." He was arrested when deplaning in Chicago. (Thus, his case may be treated differently from that of Hamdi, who was arrested abroad, in Afghanistan.) The Second Circuit, in a 2-1 ruling, held that Padilla's detention violated the Non-Detention Act of 1971, which asserts that no citizens may be held by the federal government "except pursuant to an act of Congress." The Government is appealing, claiming that the President has power to unilaterally cause such detentions to occur.
Cheney v. Judicial Watch and Sierra Club. This case involves the right of the vice president (and, by implication, of the president) to refuse to turn over documents in a civil lawsuit. The suit seeks to determine if Cheney violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act (the law that forced First Lady Hillary Clinton to open up her sessions on health care).

Given the importance of all of these cases (with their implications), I've got them on my docket, and plan to follow them in the coming weeks and months.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040116.html

01-19-2004, 06:33 AM	#43 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	I'm not clear how this differs from the practice of approving a route for protests that is done throughout the country in cities and towns alike. When you apply for a permit to hold a rally, you basically say where you want to do it and often the city/town then tells you where you can do it. While I don't understand the reasons behind Bush's policy on this, I don't see it as hurting free speech. The protestors are allowed to say whatever they want they just aren't allowed to do it whereever they want. Not that I support the abortion protesters, but are they not also made to stay a certain distance away from the clinics they are protesting? __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

01-19-2004, 09:00 AM	#47 (permalink)
Conclamo Ludus Modern Man Location: West Michigan	Putting the protestors and/or supporters in one area wouldn't bother me, what bothers me is that the press is not allowed in or out. I find that pretty disturbing if it is true. __________________ Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold. -Son House, Death Letter Blues

01-19-2004, 10:29 AM	#50 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Abortion protesters are evil fundamentalist Christians. So naturally they get arrested for racketering laws and are constantly subjected to double jeopardy. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-19-2004, 01:57 PM	#62 (permalink)
hammer4all Insane	I thought this was fitting: Last edited by hammer4all; 01-19-2004 at 02:14 PM..

01-19-2004, 05:45 PM	#70 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	Behave, folks..... __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

01-19-2004, 12:02 AM	#41 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	shrug i've always taken the amendments and the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and IMO, no one should be allowed to change it as they see fit or make excuses or what not - and personally I find free-zones pretty frightening. not to mention Secret Service as SS lol!

01-19-2004, 03:27 AM	#42 (permalink)
hammer4all Insane	Two more articles: Free Speech Kept Off US Streets Bush Makes Protesters 'Disappear'

01-19-2004, 07:20 AM	#44 (permalink)
mystix Tilted	there is a bushisamoron.com. need i say more?

01-19-2004, 10:57 AM	#51 (permalink)
Astrocloud Apocalypse Nerd	Actually Anti-Choice activists are usually infringing on other people's rights. Removing Bush protesters from his view during his limo rides is a completely different matter. If you don't see the difference -you are just being obstinate. I'm honestly suprised that no Bush Apologist has supported the president on the grounds that he is infallible and can do no wrong. Don't you support the President?

01-19-2004, 11:12 AM	#54 (permalink)
Astrocloud Apocalypse Nerd	You are being obstinate. Anti-Choice activists are blocking access to clinics -that's why they are prevented from "protesting" how they want. Anti-Bush protestors are just holding signs on the side of the road while Dumya drives by. There is a HUGE difference between the two forms of "speech". The anti-choice fanatics are not exercising a form a speech so much as preventing others from exercising the rights they have over their own bodies.

01-19-2004, 12:08 PM	#59 (permalink)
Astrocloud Apocalypse Nerd	See there you go again. Giving up all logical discussion you tell me what my opinion is and then argue against that. For your information "obstinate" is not a name. It's a condition and I'm curious why you think it doesn't apply to you. I can be obstinate at times -as can every human being. The whacked out "Save the Baby" abortion protestors blocking access to abortion clinics is in no way like someone who holds a sign near Bush's limo route. The idea that people can't make a shouting protest in court is weak. You also can't post a political sign in my front yard without my say so. The Bush protestors are protesting in public places. Every point you've made thus far indicates that you are unfamiliar with these issues. Why don't you support Bush here and say that people who protest against him should be in jail. I think that's a better tactic and far more defensible than the "I just don't see it" defense. Oh yeah and since you asked "How many times have you pointed to something Bush did right?" I'll tell you. I support the action on Iraq. But then I supported Clinton when he needed to go into Iraq and didn't get any support from the Republican dominated congress.

01-19-2004, 03:41 PM	#65 (permalink)
lordjeebus ‚±‚Ìˆó˜U‚ª–Ú‚É“ü‚ç‚Ê‚© Location: College	For those who think the practice of quarantining protesters from the public spaces where they wish to protest on the basis of their political position, I have some questions. 1. Would it be all right for the Secret Service to designate a county of Vermont as the free speech zone for the nation and demand that all who wish to protest the President's policies in public do so in that area? (those that support the President would still be allowed to demonstrate this support in any public area) 2. If not, why not? What is the difference, if it is all right to relocate protesters 1/3 of a mile from where they seek to be? Is it simply distance? If so, where do we draw the line? If not, what else is there?

01-19-2004, 10:42 PM	#73 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	OOOO, Lurkette steps in with that sexay woman powa! Anyway, onetime2 and Astrocloud, You obviously aren't going to agree, and you've obviously stopped listening (so the other believes) so the both of you should step away from the discussion (about a 7 on the civility scale, not to bad, but not perfect) and call it a day. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

01-22-2004, 06:54 AM	#76 (permalink)
prb Psycho	Not only are Bush's critics being deprived of their First Amendment rights to free speech, but also being deprived of their right under the same amendment to " peaceably assemble". This is so unAmerican. Nixon wishes he had thought of this.