Rep. Sestak On FISA: ‘We Should Have Stood Up And Said No’
Rep. Sestak On FISA: ‘We Should Have Stood Up And Said No’
In an interview with ThinkProgress yesterday, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) expressed his disappointment with the recent revisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Over the weekend, Congress capitulated to White House demands, and passed a FISA bill that unnecessarily expands the power of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Sestak, who was one of 183 representatives to vote against the bill, told us:
How could we have not have stood up for rights of civil liberties while ensuring the proper ability to go and listen, and just stayed during the recess if necessary. And I understand that our leadership in the caucus has to worry about how the public will perceive it, but I also know this, that ultimately, we have to, as Benjamin Franklin said, be concerned that those who give up…liberty in the name security, deserve neither liberty or security. This is a time that I strongly believe, we should have stood up and said no. Attorney General Gonzales, we’re not going to let you decide the guidelines upon which you’ll listen in on Americans.
Sestak noted that the administration had rejected a compromise bill worked out between Congressional leaders and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell. “We made the three major changes that [McConnell] wanted,” said Sestak. “The issue here is they just don’t want to come to the FISA court. That’s enough to tell me we need them to.”
“We had voted for a bill the evening before that had actually brought together a proper balance of the civil liberties of our citizens,” said Sestak. “We should have brought that bill up Saturday, instead of the Senate bill…we could have gotten it the next morning under majority votes. And that would have meant probably that we had to stay in session this week, and that would have forced the Senate to come back and deal with it.” Watch it:
Referencing his 31-year career in the military, Sestak said he witnessed the need for surveillance when he headed the Navy’s anti-terrorism unit after 9/11. “But you know,” he said, “I also learned that [intelligence officers will] press a little extra to get that information they need. And at times, constitutionally, they’ll go over the edge. That’s what Congress is to make sure, they don’t go over the edge.”
UPDATE: FireDogLake has more.
Transcript:
REP. JOE SESTAK: “I’m disappointed, frankly. We had voted for a bill the evening before that had actually brought together a proper balance of the civil liberties of our citizens and ensuring that we were able to go after terrorists and listen in appropriately. The FISA system works and this struck the right balance by correcting things, such as, if some individual in Germany is talking to another individual in Spain, and the call is routed through the United States, that they could listen to that. But it mandated that they’d have to come back to FISA to make sure that if they were listening to an American here at home and protect those over seas, that that would be done. And FISA permits the President, in an emergency, to listen in, and even come to FISA 72 hours later if it’s an emergency. The sufficient protections. We should have brought that bill up Saturday, instead of the Senate bill. It has abrogated our responsibility, I believe, to protect, what I believe we are most here to protect, our Constitution. I think that, because it didn’t get the two-thirds votes — necessary to suspension rules. And we could have gotten it the next morning under majority votes. And that would have meant probably that we had to stay in session this week, and that would have forced the Senate to come back and deal with it.”[...]
How could we have not stood up for rights of civil liberties while ensuring the proper ability to go and listen, and just stayed during the recess if necessary. And I understand that our leadership in the caucus has to worry about how the public will perceive it, but I also know this, that ultimately, we have to, as Benjamin Franklin said, be concerned that “those who give up security,” excuse me, “liberty in the name security, deserve neither liberty or security.” This is a time that I strongly believe, we should have stood up and said no. Attorney General Gonzales, we’re not going to let you decide the guidelines upon which you’ll listen in on Americans. We are going to do that because we have been sent as the House of Representatives to ensure the right balance is done between those two — civil liberties and fighting terrorism. I know, I headed the Navy’s anti-terrorism unit. When I went into Afghanistan that time, I wanted all the…and when I worked for President Clinton, I learned that there is a value of the proper eavesdropping to do data mining. And I saw that as I headed the Navy’s anti-terrorism unit after 9/11. But you know, I also learned that there are no one armed intelligence officers, or very few because they are always saying on the one hand, but on the other hand. So therefore in a war, they’ll press a little extra to get that information they need. And at times, constitutionally, they’ll go over the edge. That’s what Congress is to make sure, they don’t go over the edge. This constitution and its ideals are what is most important to our future, with the right amount of security being ensured. That bill we had, voted on Friday night, would have done that. We should have brought it back. We should have stayed here, in Washington, not go for recess.
[...]
That is correct. Vice Admiral McConnell had come, in accordance to our leadership, to an agreement, that he had felt that the bill we had constructed and voted on Friday evening, actually protected the security of Americans. And then, there was a later statement saying he could not agree to it. And the belief was that the White House said that they could not agree to it. Now they are always in charge, the President is. But you have to wonder after he had said to Nancy, to Speaker Pelosi in a meeting, that Admiral McConnell is my man on this issue. Then why couldn’t he stand by his agreement. The issue here is that after and before 9/11 all the president only had to do was come to the FISA court and say “I’m about to do this, does it meet the constitutional responsibilities” or do it, and 72 hours later, if it’s an emergency, come to the FISA court. He always had all the tools he needed. FISA’s not broken except for some minor changes, like as I mentioned, two individuals out there across the ocean, foreigners, not U.S, listening to one another, and because of today’s technologies it gets routed through a server or something here in the United States. We made those changes. We made the three major changes that he wanted. The issue here is they just don’t want to come to the FISA court. That’s enough to tell me we need them to. I spent 31 years of my military career protecting the Constitution. Do I believe in security? Every moment, I wouldn’t have stayed those 31 years. But what I learned during that period of time is that while we’re respected for the power of our military, we’re respected for the power of our economy. We’re admired for the power of our ideals. There’s the right balance ensuring the protections of those ideals and the protection of our day to day lifes of our citizens. We struck that with the point man of the administration. We should have stayed with that and fought hard to do that because ultimately it is the Constitution we protect and to ensure the furtherance of the type of society we want while protecting our overall security.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Shoulda’, coulda’, woulda’.
Disgusting display of weakness.
Next time – if there is a next time – stand your ground, man. You don’t need anyone else to help you do it, either. Be. A. Man.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:55 amStupid asses, I WARNED YOU BEFORE BUSH WAS ELECTED(SELECTED) BACK IN 99!……
August 8th, 2007 at 10:56 am#1, MA
August 8th, 2007 at 10:56 amyou said it.
> That’s what Congress is to make sure, they don’t go over the edge.â€
Appreciate your intelligent thoughts Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) but the Bush/Cheney admin has already put the USA ( except for the super rich ) into one helluva toxic cesspool of an abyss that will take at least a decade to cleanup.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:57 amamerica gos to HELL!
August 8th, 2007 at 10:57 am“Comment by Marcus Aurelius — August 8, 2007 @ 10:55 am”
He did…. “Sestak, who was one of 183 representatives to vote against the bill”
He can’t ensure what other people do…… He did his job, yell at those pricks that voted for it not the ones that did not.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:57 amwhen somebody is a KNOWN liar and criminal and asks for something, the correct response is to give them NOTHING.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:58 amCongress, GO F*CK YOURSELVES.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:59 amBUT YOU DIDN’T…. Why? Because the spineless, wimpy, talk a big game Democrats know better than to mess with Bush over terror. They’ll lose in the end. See 2004 for that.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:59 amI’ll be years living down the shame of this.
I’m revoking my party Democracy Bond now, right after this. I told them to do it Saturday but I’ve haven’t heard a damn word yet.
They don’t get my money. It has nothing to do with anything but the sheer chutzpah that they would dare to consider taking it. What kind of soul do they think I possess? Whatever that answer may be, ultimately they judge it worthy to be shit upon, and I won’t stand for it.
I’ll have more on this Saturday. For once I am starting a work today, and publishing this week will not be the stone cold first draft as it has always been before.
They judged me to be powerless too. We shall see what my words can do, Miz Pelosi. We shall see.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:00 amMarcus says it all.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:00 amWell, apparently, he didn’t put any spine into it. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have said, “We Should Have Stood Up And Said No”.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:00 amI’m sick and tired of Congress allowing King Bush II and Richelieu Cheney to erode our rights, then turning around and saying how they made a mistake. It’s too damn late now! If congressional Democrats want to know why their poll numbers are so low… all they have to do is look in the mirror at their spineless images. We need more leaders, Democrat or Republican, like Rep. Sestak who’ll stand up to these people and stop what’s happening to our nation.
I WANT MY DAMNED COUNTRY BACK!!!
August 8th, 2007 at 11:01 am“See 2004 for that.
Comment by Democrats are LIARS — August 8, 2007 @ 10:59 am”
You mean the STOLEN elections as another example of how HONEST this president is????
3 MILLION votes challenged and 1 MILLION not allowed!!!!
All because of those CAGING lists, which are ILLEGAL!!!!
August 8th, 2007 at 11:01 amPsssst…You’ve got some spinach or something stuck in your teeth.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:02 amDemocrats need to put their act to gether and learn from Republicans.
Republicans always united when it comes to voting, that does not mean that they are always right,but Democrats cannot have this now and expect people’s respect. Democrats leadrship is weak. Nancy Pelosi all talk and no action.
Rep. Sestak at least is showing anger , concern and unhappiness over this,but other Democrats think differently , they just voted quickly and left for their ’summer vacation’…
August 8th, 2007 at 11:03 amBUT YOU DIDN’T…. Why? Because the spineless, wimpy, talk a big game Democrats know better than to mess with Bush over terror. They’ll lose in the end. See 2004 for that.
Comment by Democrats are LIARS — August 8, 2007 @ 10:59 am
You are 100% correct, Bush is the BIGGEST terrorist in the world. It’s a sad state of affairs when the Russian President is more trusted by our allies than our own Dumbya!!
August 8th, 2007 at 11:03 amOne more thing: any time you see a voter say “blue dogs did this” or “yell at the guys who voted for it” know with utter certainty that person is in total, textbook, classic denial.
Your rationalizations are blatantly transparent. Our party looked at us and knifed us in plain sight. They think nothing of us.
There is no other answer, and your rationalizations are pathetically lame and sad.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:04 amBUT YOU DIDN’T…. Why? Because the spineless, wimpy, talk a big game Democrats know better than to mess with Bush over terror. They’ll lose in the end. See 2004 for that.
Comment by Democrats are LIARS — August 8, 2007 @ 10:59 am
Factually speaking, 181 Dems voted against it. 41 voted for it.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:04 am“Well, apparently, he didn’t put any spine into it. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have said, “We Should Have Stood Up And Said Noâ€.
Comment by Marcus Aurelius — August 8, 2007 @ 11:00 am”
So now your gonna jump down the throats of those that do stand up for our rights?????
I watched several house members stand up on that podium and state that this was WRONG!
I don’t know if he was one of them, as there were many, but he did not vote for the bill.
I understand the anger, but I am not mad at him! I am mad at those Dems that voted for it.
Take your anger out on the appropriate people, not those that are voting correctly.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:04 amComment by Democrats are LIARS
A better screenname would be:
“Neocon Bootlickers Local #105″
or
“Partison Hack/Hater”
both fit you like a glove!!!
August 8th, 2007 at 11:04 amI am so goddamn sick of These Thugs posing as an American Presidency.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:05 amPsssst…You’ve got some spinach or something stuck in your teeth.
Comment by Marcus Aurelius — August 8, 2007 @ 11:02 am
It may be sod from the surf and turf.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:07 amBecause the spineless, wimpy, talk a big game Democrats know better than to mess with Bush over terror. They’ll lose in the end. See 2004 for that.
Comment by Democrats are LIARS — August 8, 2007 @ 10:59 am
Democrats are not LIARS/Ihateliberals/I heart Alito, etc.,
August 8th, 2007 at 11:07 amYou seem to have forgotten that there was another election since 2004. Remember what happened in 2006, or has your petty, hate-filled mind blocked all that out?
__________
Should Have.
Could Have.
Would Have.
As much as I’m disappointed in President Bush; I’m even more disappointed in the Democrats/Progressives for failing.
More evidence that Republicans & Dems/Progressives are controlled by the same puppet masters and we the people (serfs) are meaningless to them.
I enjoyed the Republic but it’s time for something else.
Too much corruption and too many feminized weak spineless manginas cowering and afraid to stand up and fight.
With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control/weaken the men.
Men, opt-out & go your own way.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:09 am__________
“or “yell at the guys who voted for it†know with utter certainty that person is in total, textbook, classic denial.
Your rationalizations are blatantly transparent. Our party looked at us and knifed us in plain sight. They think nothing of us.
There is no other answer, and your rationalizations are pathetically lame and sad.
Comment by paradox — August 8, 2007 @ 11:04 am”
OK….. So when a kid comes to his dad and asks if he can go ride his motorcycle and his dad says no, but the kid goes to his mother and she says yes we should yell and cuss at both parents for allowing the kid to ride the motorcycle which was used in a bank robbery?????
PLEASE!!!! I understand the anger, as I am pissed as well…… But that is like saying that Russ Fiengold is just as criminal in the act over the last several years as well……. He has been trying to do what he can, so you cut him down in the streets as well because a FEW are capitulating in this criminal act??
August 8th, 2007 at 11:09 amTake your anger out on the appropriate people, not those that are voting correctly.
Comment by RemoveBush — August 8, 2007 @ 11:04 am
I agree with you, RB.
Although I would have liked to hear these things from Sestak last week, in the proper context of course.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:09 amI agree with Sestak. They should have said no. And I also think he is point on in his observation that they don’t want to have to go the court. They don’t want any oversight. They want it to be just their own little sandbox. I think the Democrats are just too afraid that if there is a terrorist attack the Republicans will be able to point at them and blame them for it if they don’t roll over for every single claim, no matter how specious, that it is a “tool” needed to protect America.
This bill will do nothing to prevent a terrorist attack. But then that is not what it’s for.
We waited too long, people. Congress is useless. They have, in the end, abdicated.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:10 am“Although I would have liked to hear these things from Sestak last week, in the proper context of course.
Comment by Zooey — August 8, 2007 @ 11:09 am”
Zooey….. I don’t know that he did not!
There were MANY Congressmen/women standing up on the podium speaking about how WRONG this bill was……. I only watched a few, and did not see the entire debate so I don’t know what he had to say, if anything.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:13 amIf the President asserts his right to go beyond the strictures of the law and the Constitution, he should be impeached, Sir. Fine, you voted against this legislation. Now, sign on to impeach.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:13 amMen, opt-out & go your own way.
__________
Comment by tonka — August 8, 2007 @ 11:09 am
Me’thinks this is coolmoedee under a different name.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:14 am“Sir. Fine, you voted against this legislation. Now, sign on to impeach.
Comment by Peter C — August 8, 2007 @ 11:13 am”
Now that is the right way to approach this!!!!!
August 8th, 2007 at 11:14 amRep. Sestak On FISA: ‘We Should Have Stood Up And Said No’
No sh!t you think. Stop pandering to the boy king, impeach him, and the rest of the criminals, get us out of Iraq, and start defending this country, not corporate interest.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:15 amEven though this sunsets in six months, it is going to haunt the Dem leadership that once again completely caved in, bent over, and took it whimpering from the Bushits.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:17 amLet them call you soft on terror, just don’t be soft on the Goddamn Constitution!
Jello Biafra once said, “I am tired of a owe party state, pretending to be a two party state” This was back in the early 90’s. I think he may have been on to something.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:18 amScrew Sestak. He’s admitted that there were illegal factors to this bill; and has disclosed problems with the debate. This is ont the end of this. Congress keeps doing this: Defyign its oath.
Let’s prosecute Sestak for violating this oath. He doens’t appear to be able to coherently do what he thinks should be done.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:18 amThe passage of the FISA bill nullified the influence of the Netroots. The Netroots was shown how much they matter. Z E R O
There were some big Netroots canidates who voted for this bill.
Now you have all the Netroots websites scrambling to keep their users and virtual ATM machines for future Netroots canidates alive, so you start to hear bullshit like “blue dog Dems”
I will only be played as a fool once. If there was one single issue we all stood by, it was spying on Americans. The Netroots have failed.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:21 amThis statement indicates he doesn’t understand the oath: It is a requirement on all:
No, you’re there to preserve, protect, and defend it from domestic enmies without any mental reservation. Pelosin and the DNC, after the bill was passed, documented their resrvations. That is evidence of 5 uSC 3331 vioaltions. Let’s get the prosecutions going againt this Congress. Their oath is meaningless to them. The Constitution requires an oath to be enforced, not given lip service or explained away.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:21 amKristol likes Hillary? There can be only one conclusion. Run away! Billy K wants more of the same. It’s time, however, for real change, like Obama. Hillary was pro the war. She then showed bad judgment again by trying to downplay it and by not admitting she was wrong. Guess who is owned by, ooops I mean taking contributions from lobbyists and who isn’t?
FDR was right: the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Change is needed. Let’s be courageous.
Back in the real world, Bartlett’s compatriot Matthew Iglesias, sees this as being less about political gamesmanship than ideology: “One can try to speculate that Kristol is playing some odd angles here, but I think the record indicates that he’s genuinely more committed to war — criticized Republican critics of the Kosovo War, criticized Bill Clinton for not killing enough people during the Kosovo War, backed John McCain in the 2000 primaries — and based on the evidence thinks Clinton will be more sympathetic to his agenda than the alternatives.â€
Further to the left, however, the approval of the Weekly Standard isn’t considered a mark of distinction. Arthur Silber at Once Upon a Time feels a Democrat will be considered “responsible†only “if you think the United States should still have troops in Iraq at the end of your second term as president, which is to say, at least through the end of 2016 — which is, of course, the view of the entrenched foreign policy establishment that believes in a foreign policy of aggressive, neverending global interventionism maintained by an empire of military bases around the world, all to guarantee American hegemony.â€>
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/?hp
August 8th, 2007 at 11:24 amwith all due respect to the both of you, let’s not coddle the freekin’ Reps who voted correctly. They did the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. They showed no courage and no leadership.
While the Dems only control one-sixth of the Federal government, they can certainly tie the hands of the other five-sixths. How? No bills, no resolutions, no funding of any kind, for any thing (better to kill this country ourselves than to let them enslave it). No recess, no vacation, no adjournment. Do they consider this light work? Do they consider it a part-time job. Do they not get the seriousness of the situation?
Message to the Republicans: You ad better come to the table ready to bargain, because we’re deadly serious about protecting the Constitution.
As I said: a Disgusting display of weakness.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:24 amBlubbering and weeping. Weeping and blubbering. Up, you–and be a man!
August 8th, 2007 at 11:25 amExpat: No, this Congress failed.
Netroots didn’t take an oath to the Constitution — this Congress did. Stop blaming the disorganized for the recklessness of this US Government. Also, just because the Congress ignores the Constitution, doesn’t mean the Consttution has gone away. The opposite: This bill becomes evidence of their illegal activity.
The public still has a role in defending this Constitution from the domestic enmies in Congress. Grand juries and prrosecutors have a duty: Prosecuting these members of Congress.
If you want to give up — like the Democrats and GOP have — fine. Enjoy being irrelevant. YOu have a choice: Stand to defend the Constitution using all lawful options; or being irrelevant yourself. You’re talking about yourself: Whether you want to be relevant or not. Your choice.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:26 amSome law firm appears to have coordinated on this Act with the WH and DOJ. Time to find out which telecoms and law firms were involved with drafting of ths act; and find out their legal interests in dissuading enforcement of the Constitution. Legal counsel have an oath to the Constitution. This act shows they’ve drafted a bill that defies their oath.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:27 amYou guys think this is a sh$tstorm?
Wait till it comes out that they’re recording ALL calls in the US.
Wait till it comes out, that everytime you pick up your phone, everyword you say is recorded.
Wait till that comes out.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:28 amBartlebee,
Great. the issue isnt’ surevillance. All calls — if there is a warrant issued by a court — can be monitored. The issue is different: Whether the Congress can or cannot be trusted to defend the Constittution. It cannot.
Stop talking about what might happen, especialy when you have no plan; and start focusing on what can be done: Prosecuting these Members of Congress. Stay forused on solving this problem. Thank you.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:30 amIt’s easy to see why, they were messing with congress’s vacation.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:30 am“with all due respect to the both of you, let’s not coddle the freekin’ Reps who voted correctly. They did the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. They showed no courage and no leadership.
While the Dems only control one-sixth of the Federal government, they can certainly tie the hands of the other five-sixths. How? No bills, no resolutions, no funding of any kind, for any thing (better to kill this country ourselves than to let them enslave it). No recess, no vacation, no adjournment. Do they consider this light work? Do they consider it a part-time job. Do they not get the seriousness of the situation?
Message to the Republicans: You ad better come to the table ready to bargain, because we’re deadly serious about protecting the Constitution.
As I said: a Disgusting display of weakness.
Comment by Marcus Aurelius — August 8, 2007 @ 11:24 am”
MA, you expect a person who has no power to refuse to put bills up on the floor???? You expect this one person to hold the Congress in session???
PLEASE!!!!!
That falls on the LEADERSHIP of the Congress to do that!!!! I understand being pissed at them, but to start SHREDDING the lower people who can’t do anything but voice their oppions and make their votes is INSANE!
Next your gonna start saying that we should blame all police officers for what the Police Chief tells them to do?????
STOP!!!! Take a deep breath and THINK!!!!
You can’t go blaming EVERYONE for something that they don’t have any power to control.
Yes the LEADERSHIP is to blame, but not the ENTIRE bunch!!!!!
August 8th, 2007 at 11:30 am“…instead, we bent over and said ‘yes’.”
August 8th, 2007 at 11:30 amThis is truly sickening. What a craven individual. A day late and a pound short.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:31 amThe Most Trusted Name (to pander to the Bush Killing Machine) in News:
MSP: Cranes ready at bridge as divers search
August 8th, 2007 at 11:31 amSuspect may be ID’d in schoolyard deaths 5 min
Dead NYU coed’s boyfriend slits wrists 34 min
Family fights off armed home invaders
Mine boss: We’re back at square one
NYC storm creates commuter nightmare
SI: Bonds is baseball’s new home run king
Your e-mails: Thoughts on Bonds
Coalition forces battle Mehdi Army 20 min
Endeavour fueled for launch | LIVE
Clerk grabs robber’s gun, turns it on him
Ticker: Mrs. Edwards: ‘Can’t make John black’
Buffalo rush to aid baby seized by lion
Extreme road rage closes ‘blood alley’
WLWT: Police: Woman killed man over quarters
CNN Wire: Latest updates on top stories
Considering there is no real outcry from the general public over this bill, and the closer we get to election time, the closer Hillary will feel to the White House (and she’s going to want this kind of power), how much you wanna’ bet congress renews it pretty much as is?
August 8th, 2007 at 11:31 amRemoveBush,
It could ahve been done: :”You expect this one person to hold the Congress in session???”
All Senators have the optoin to anonymously stopped this bill. You’re not making a case or providing a credible defense or excuse. It was possible. This Congress has approved illegally an unlawful change to the Constitution. This isn’t about surveillance; this is about their oath and whether they can be trusted to defend this document. They cannot. They are doemstic enemies. They need to be prosecuted.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:33 amDemocrats don’t have any balls.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:33 am“Considering there is no real outcry from the general public over this bill, and the closer we get to election time”
Bush’s approval rating is going up. The Democrats, down.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:34 am#42
Admitting that a movement to get this Congress into power to stop exactly went down last weekend failed is tough to stomach, but that is the case. All the liberal blogs were nullified with this vote.
Netroots? All it has become is a virtual ATM. The Netroots were bilked for millions and then were stabbed in the back while most of the community was getting sloshed at a hotel in Chicago.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:35 amI agree, Congress will most likely renew it as it is — despite the outcry. But I reject your assertion that there has been no outcry:
The lack of asserted action by the public is not the same as the lack of leadership of the Congress or their refusal to assert their oath. the oath is there to compel action; not require constant monitoring by the public. The oath exists to bind action whent it is difficult — as was now: “No, we cannot pass this bill. Let the President violate the law. But we cannot join him in this illegal acdtivity.”
Congress chose to assent to what is illegal. That is impermissible.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:35 amif there is a warrant issued by a court — can be monitored.
Comment by Anon — August 8, 2007 @ 11:30 am
Yea?
Maybe in Red China.
Monitoring ALL calls in the US would constitute an immediate and total violation of the Constitution, and something FISA could NEVER authorize.
If you’re fine with that then join the right wing now dumbass.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:35 amThere were MANY Congressmen/women standing up on the podium speaking about how WRONG this bill was……. I only watched a few, and did not see the entire debate so I don’t know what he had to say, if anything.
Comment by RemoveBush — August 8, 2007 @ 11:13 am
Ok, so we don’t know that he didn’t say these things on the House floor already.
It is rather ridiculous to be going after Sestak harder than we’re going after the 41 Dems and ALL of the Republicans who voted for this horrendous FISA Act.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:35 am“All Senators have the optoin to anonymously stopped this bill. You’re not making a case or providing a credible defense or excuse. It was possible. This Congress has approved illegally an unlawful change to the Constitution. This isn’t about surveillance; this is about their oath and whether they can be trusted to defend this document. They cannot. They are doemstic enemies. They need to be prosecuted.
Comment by Anon — August 8, 2007 @ 11:33 am”
Yes, but it is only a TEMPRORARY stop!
I’m not saying that more should not have been done!!!!! I’m saying that SHREDDING a person for voting against it is just not an American way!
If you want to blame someone, blame those that voted for it…. It could have been stopped just as EASILY by voting NO!!!!
Next you’ll be saying that the bank teller should be tried for the Bank robbery because she did not try to stop the bank robber!!!!!
August 8th, 2007 at 11:36 amComment by RemoveBush — August 8, 2007 @ 11:30 am
183 representatives can easily find a way, even proceedurally, to hold up legislation. Any legislation. If the man says, “we should have”, the implication is that they “could have”.
As for the 41 (?) turncoats, some call them “Blue dog democrats”. Other names for the same thing include “Dixiecrats” and “Neocons”. Kick their asses out of the party and let them answer to their constituents.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:37 am#55: The “movement” is Congress: They are there to defend the Constitution. A government that has to regulated by something else is no longer legitimate, soverign, or competent.
If the blogs were “nullfied” why are you bothing to comment? The only reasonable conclusion: Either you believe you want to contrbitue to what is nullified; or you do not believe what you are saying: The blogs are relevant. You’re arguign against yourself. What of the blogs that challenge Congress and organize the public, but do not require funds to sustain them? You make no allowance for that.
Again, the issue isn’t the netroots or the public: But the Congress illegal rebellion against the rule of law. They can be lawfully prosecuted.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:37 am59: You’re making excuses.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:38 am“It is rather ridiculous to be going after Sestak harder than we’re going after the 41 Dems and ALL of the Republicans who voted for this horrendous FISA Act.
Comment by Zooey — August 8, 2007 @ 11:35 am”
That is EXACTLY what I am saying…….
It’s fine to be mad at him if there is thought that he could have done more…… However, to attack a man that did not vote for it but say NOTHING about those that did is not American!
August 8th, 2007 at 11:38 amComment by Marcus Aurelius — August 8, 2007 @ 11:24 am
I see more shit being heaped on Sestak HERE than I’ve seen being heaped on any BlueDog or Republican.
Just sayin’
August 8th, 2007 at 11:39 amStop talking about what might happen, especialy when you have no plan; and start focusing on what can be done: Prosecuting these Members of Congress. Stay forused on solving this problem. Thank you.
Comment by Anon — August 8, 2007 @ 11:30 am
A. Don’t tell me what to talk about.
B. If you could read, you’d see I said this is ALREADY happening. Not something that “might” happen.
C. I do have a plan slim. And the plan is to TALK about it.
Once the confused folks like you stop sweeping it under the rug, or acting like it could be legal, and the people actually start “TALKING” about it, then it will come to an end. Once people, educated people, like Judges, Lawyers etc, realize that every call in the US is being recorded, then people will do something about it.
UNTIL we ALL start talking about it, openly, then nothing will be done.
Which is just what Bush wants.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:40 am“I’m saying that SHREDDING a person for voting against it is just not an American way!”
he had the hoption to resign; she had the option to — on the floor –charge her peers with rebellio;n and she had the power to imepach; and he had the power to bring charges in ethics committees.
We haven’ t seen this.
If anyone is serous about this “wrong” then Congress — by refusing to impeach, prsoecute, indict, and start an ethics investigation against their peers — has no foundation.
Can’t do this in the media: Congress needs to start this oversight per the House and Sneate rules. if they fail, they are not relevant. This is a problem with Congress and the President: Illegal activity, no accountabiity, and refusla to use all lawful options. Whining about it in the medai doesn’t help: We need to see some ethics investigations. Not maybe, not perhaps, not tomorrow, not next year, not after the election: But now.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:41 am65. Then start implementing you plan. Start giving some directions. Start getting some peole to do what you’re talking about. Stop talking.
Start getting “your plan” — whatever it is, other than talking — going.
Action: Prosecutions, indictements, accountabilty. Other than that, more talk is what the DNC promised us, and gave us: And they ignore the Constitution. Plans have action, not talk.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:42 amThat is EXACTLY what I am saying…….
It’s fine to be mad at him if there is thought that he could have done more…… However, to attack a man that did not vote for it but say NOTHING about those that did is not American!
Comment by RemoveBush — August 8, 2007 @ 11:38 am
Trashing Sestak like this makes us weaker, not stronger. The trolls, and wingnuts with actual power, love to see us trash our own like this.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:42 am“You’re making excuses.
Comment by Anon — August 8, 2007 @ 11:38 am”
No!
I’m being REALISTIC!!!!
As I said…. “Next you’ll be saying that the bank teller should be tried for the Bank robbery because she did not try to stop the bank robber!!!!!”
Sure the teller could have jumped the bank robber, and maybe this would have been successful but unless MORE people stood up too she would not have been as effective and could have been killed.
Since when did America start turning on those that at least vote PROPERLY????
Since when did America say that one person should take the blame for a passage of a bill?????
This is NOT America!!!!!
As a Vet I am pissed at Congress more than the average American, but I am not blaming ONE MAN for this and SHREDDING him for his NO vote!
August 8th, 2007 at 11:43 amApply a small amount of shampoo – available at pet stores – to the top of the head. (Do not use dish soap, as it can dry and irritate a sasquatch’s skin.) Be extremely careful to keep it away from the eyes. Lather down to the tail, including the neck and underside fur. If using a flea shampoo, leave the lather on for the recommended time. Rinse and repeat.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:43 am“Once people, educated people, like Judges, Lawyers etc, realize that every call in the US is being recorded, then people will do something about it.”\
Baloney: We’ve already had lawyers phones tapped. This happened befoer this bill. What did Congress do? They voted for it.
Mobilizing lawyers? Who do you think supported the illegal activity. Lawyers. They dont’ care about the tapping; they care about the lack of oversight so they can avoid accountability.
Too alte to start askign the alwyers and judges to be given deference: They’ve been shut out — by their agreement in this bill — and have agreed to make themselves irrelevant. Courts aren’t ivnolved with this anymore: The AG can do what he wants, just like the lawyers and Members of Congress want.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:44 amanon,
August 8th, 2007 at 11:45 amTALK IS CHEAP!
SHARE YOU WEALTH OR SHUTUP!
ACTION FROM BUSH HAS SO FAR BEEN ZERO!
THE ONLY ACTION BUSH HAS TAKEN IS WAR!
ALOT OF PEOPLE HAVE SUFFERED AND OR DIED UNDER BUSHES,CHRISTIANS,RETHUGLIGAN PARTIE!
65. Then start implementing you plan. Start giving some directions. Start getting some peole to do what you’re talking about. Stop talking.
Comment by Anun — August 8, 2007 @ 11:42 am
What are you a freaking moron? Can’t read or just can’t comprehend what you read.
One more time dimwit.
The “Plan” IS to TALK.
Get it stupid?
Once people START talking about it, and the word gets out, THEN people “with ACTUAL POWER” will do something about it.
UNTIL people TALK about it, then NOTHING will be done.
Idiot.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:45 amANON, YOU ARE NOTHING BUT HOT AIR, AND CHEAP TALK!
August 8th, 2007 at 11:46 amIMPEACH BUSH, THEN PUT HIS ASS ON TRIAL!!!!
August 8th, 2007 at 11:47 amHey, Z: I don’t expect much from a bunch of relabeled neocons. I do, however, expect the Opposition Party to fight tooth and nail for every inch, every measure, every amendment that they can. The best of the weak is simply not good enough. We need leaders.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:48 amIf we “eat our own”, the neocons have more power. WE are supposed to be more than the absolutist, “with or against us”, goose-stepping neocons so we should not be beating down Sestak or others who are fighting the good fight.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:49 amBaloney: We’ve already had lawyers phones tapped. This happened befoer this bill. What did Congress do? They voted for it.
Comment by Moron — August 8, 2007 @ 11:44 am
Idiot.
NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT IT YET!!!
Do you get it pinhead???
NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT IT!!!!!
Once people START talking about it, THEN something might get done. People are talking about recording “SOME” calls.
When the word gets out, that they’re recording ALL calls, THEN things might start to change.
Unless everyones as stupid as you and thinks a Warrant can be legally issued to spy on everyone in the country.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:49 amI remember how dishelved Chimpy looked last Friday when he trotted out Cheney, Gonzales and McConnell to sell more illegal dismantling of the Constitution.
He looked like “his handlers” just woke him up from a booze bender.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:49 amOh, the Alcoholic Chimp. So proud of our prez.
Well, the Democrats are not a monolith. Indeed, because of America’s peculiar Two Party System, no party is unified in thought and deed. The Democrats have always had a small far right wing. It plagued FDR in the 1930s; it betrayed the Dems during Nixon years. But it is pointless to attack the Dems as a whole because of a conservative rump. The key is to challenge those that voted for this expansion of power –the actual members.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:49 am** click*click** Thank you for for participating in the GW Bush Spy-on-America program, sponsored by your local congressman, senator and the your nations phone companies. **click*click** This call may be monitored or recorded to insure the highest quality of your patriotism **
August 8th, 2007 at 11:50 amThen get your plan going. let’s get COngress prosecuted. Wakeup: The lawyers are doign this — drafting their language, and Congress is rubber stamping it.
Then uyou miss the point: The Constitution hasn’t been shredded. It’s still there. This action by Congress isn’t aproblem: It’s evidence. The Act isn’t enforceable. Remind your friends that they follow this bill to their own perit: Their actions are admissable.
All Members of Congress have a duty — even one — to refuse to let the bill go through. The lawful options included making a floor statement charging their peers with crimes if this act was implemented. That was not done.
Voting properly means voting to impeach, voting to indict, and voting to start ethics investigations.
Members of Congress have the power — when there is illegal activity — to request action to trump all business: That of impeachment. A charge of impeachment would have shut down this bill. They refused to do that. It would be privileged, and that trumps all business.
It doesn’t matter if you’re upset. THe issue is whether the Members of Congress — in that moment of choice — can be trusted to assert all lawful options. This guy didn’t do that. It’s too late to complain in the media bout things he could have done on the floor. Did he use all his lawful options? No. He’s part of the problem: Whining, and not putting the Constitution first. Impeachment would have trumped this bill. Where’s the impeachment? Not o nthe table.
All 535 of them: On the table for indictment over oath of office violations. When the Congress is in rebellion, the Members of Congress have to decide whether they’re going to contain this rebellion; or whine about not stopping it. Not impressed: Not all lawful optiosn were used.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:50 amspelling :
I remember how DISHEVELED Chimpy looked last Friday when he trotted out Cheney, Gonzales and McConnell to sell more illegal dismantling of the Constitution.
He looked like “his handlers†just woke him up from a booze bender.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:51 amOh, the Alcoholic Chimp. So proud of our prez.
Let’s see the plan to prosecute these Members of Congress. Where’s the plan to contact the prosecutors around the country to get 5 USC 3331 indictments on the table before Grand Juries?
That’s not talk. That’s action.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:53 amHey, Z: I don’t expect much from a bunch of relabeled neocons. I do, however, expect the Opposition Party to fight tooth and nail for every inch, every measure, every amendment that they can. The best of the weak is simply not good enough. We need leaders.
Comment by Marcus Aurelius — August 8, 2007 @ 11:48 am
Do you KNOW he didn’t say these very things on the floor of the House last week? Do you KNOW that he didn’t do everything he could have done?
August 8th, 2007 at 11:53 amHarry Reid and Nancy P. should step down, they are too timid.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:53 amwe’ve gone from the “do nothing congress”
to the “woulda coulda shoulda congress”
August 8th, 2007 at 11:55 amWe’ve been bullied godamn it. As a nation, as a Congress we’ve been had by a bunch of Crooks posing as an American Presidency!
August 8th, 2007 at 11:56 amAnon: he had the hoption to resign
WHAT!! He should play the “if I can’t win, I’m going home” play ground strategy? Worse, then we lose him in Congress when we most need his voice and vote.
Outrage must be tempered by reason or we cannot hope to sustain our democracy.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:56 amRinse and repeat.
Comment by Marcus Aurelius — August 8, 2007 @ 11:43 am
I never know when to stop.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:57 am85. We know one thing: there’s an illegal bill; and no impeachment which would have stopped this bill.
Doesn’t matter who did or didn’t do what they thought about; they’ve all not ensured this illegal activity has ended.
Again, nobody is sayign that surveillanc eshoud not occur. The answer means focusing on th elegal counsel who drafted this bill; and the Members of Congress who have refused to assert all lawful options to defend thsi Constitution. This hasn’t happened.
This isn’t a problem of the netroots; It’s one this Preident, his reckless legal team, and the complicity Members of Congress — all of them — have jointly done: Not done all thigns to ensure the Constitution is defended.
Talkinga bout it later, as this one is doign, is meaningless. Again, if he was serious about his concerns, then he could have used the option of impeachment to shut this bill down. he didn’t do that. All of them are in trouble.
The wy forward is to focuse on prosecutions of these Members of Congress for oath of office vioaltoins. The Constitution is not away, nor shreded: It is the SUpreme Law. The President, his legal counsel, and Membesr of Congress have been complicity with this unlawful rebelloin against the Rule of law.
Again, not talking about “no surveillance”; only that the Congress ensure the judicial power and warrant process remains; and not dleegate judicila power to the Exeuctive — as this bill has illegally done. This bill is not enforceable.
As a plan going fowrad, continue in your e-mails to freinds overseas to include messages to the NSA, GCHQ, and Candian Security services a request that they forward all war crimes evidence to the EU: and remind their commanders that this bill — as passed — is illegal, and cannot be enforced. Stop tryign to chat up the boards; start directing your messages to the NSA personnel who are going to be reviewing your e-mail. They have to choose: Between following illegal orders and hiding war crimes evidence; or forwarding that evidence of war crimes, as they have a job to do.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:58 am1999 Was the FALL of America,, Courtesy of FREEDUMB!
August 8th, 2007 at 11:59 am“All 535 of them: On the table for indictment over oath of office violations. When the Congress is in rebellion, the Members of Congress have to decide whether they’re going to contain this rebellion; or whine about not stopping it. Not impressed: Not all lawful optiosn were used.
Comment by Anon — August 8, 2007 @ 11:50 am”
The more I read your posts the more I believe you are only 18 and have no idea what the hell you are talking about!!!!
Dude/Dudet, you simply are naive and just lacking the experience to speak logically!
You can “speak” in “theoretical” terms all day long, but that does not make it REALITY!
The fact is that we have Congressional leadership that is preventing members in Congress from standing up. We have Congressional leadership that has allowed this to happen. This is NOTHING we can control!!!!! We do not vote for the LEADERSHIP, the Congress does!!!!!
Stop and think for 2 minutes before you go ranting about something that is totally UNREALISTIC.
You SHREDDING a man that voted properly!
Have you been in the streets the last 6 years yelling at the REPUBLICANS for giving all these powers to Bush??????
If not, you need to sit back and take a breath and THINK about what you are saying because YOU are coming off as a kid who just lost his blankie!
August 8th, 2007 at 11:59 am89. That was an option. if he’s so “unhappy” with things, why is he staying? He could have used impeachment to shut down this bill. Didn’t do that. What’s the plan to get this bill before the FISA court; and have them strike down this bill as illegal. Focus on that.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:59 amDo you KNOW he didn’t say these very things on the floor of the House last week? Do you KNOW that he didn’t do everything he could have done?
Comment by Zooey
Oh, Zoo, so much passion there… Keep on. :D
August 8th, 2007 at 12:01 pmA thought/question: Are the e-mails and phone calls from our troops in foreign countries to back home here in the US subject to wiretapping? Will/have any personnel had repercussions for voicing views in opposition to the occupation of Iraq?
August 8th, 2007 at 12:02 pmOh, Zoo, so much passion there… Keep on. :D
Comment by Juan C — August 8, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
Heh.
Good morning, Juan. :)
August 8th, 2007 at 12:03 pmGood morning, Juan. :)
Comment by Zooey
Good morning to you, lady. Going for coffee.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:05 pmA thought/question: Are the e-mails and phone calls from our troops in foreign countries to back home here in the US subject to wiretapping? Will/have any personnel had repercussions for voicing views in opposition to the occupation of Iraq?
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) — August 8, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
PLC, I’d be surprised if the troops haven’t been watched since Day One.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:05 pm“85. We know one thing: there’s an illegal bill; and no impeachment which would have stopped this bill.
Doesn’t matter who did or didn’t do what they thought about; they’ve all not ensured this illegal activity has ended.
Comment by Anon — August 8, 2007 @ 11:58 am”
I think you a day late and a dollar short!!!!!!
There are more crimes than this committed and yet your rambling about this one thing on this one Congressman, who voted CORRECTLY!!!!!
Kid, you need to take a nap!!!!!
This Constitution is currently gone, and the only thing that can save it is Impeachment. But as we ALL know, the leadership has REFUSSED to implement that!
So now we should go attacking EVERY other Congressman because the LEADERSHIP refuses to Impeach?????
GROW UP!!!!!
I have given you several examples that fit this situation, yet you still ramble on!!!
Currently, Pelosi and Reid are th problems….. But since WE don’t vote them to be leaders of the Congress the only thing we can do is vote them out and apply pressure on other members of Congress to keep bringing this up.
Take a freaking chill pill and read a few history books to learn how this government thing works, will you?
August 8th, 2007 at 12:06 pm89. That was an option. if he’s so “unhappy†with things, why is he staying? He could have used impeachment to shut down this bill. Didn’t do that. What’s the plan to get this bill before the FISA court; and have them strike down this bill as illegal. Focus on that.
Comment by Anon
_________________________________
“Picking his nose” is an option also – and about as idiotic. Sestak, all by his lonesome, could not have “used impeachment” which can be a lengthy process to “shut down this bill”. You are sounding more and more like a neocon trying to sound progressive initially so you can stir up trouble. So, see this longest finger? Focus on that.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:07 pmA thought/question: Are the e-mails and phone calls from our troops in foreign countries to back home here in the US subject to wiretapping? Will/have any personnel had repercussions for voicing views in opposition to the occupation of Iraq?
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC)
As the law is written, anyone is subject to being tapped. It is as badly written as the Military Commisions Act ( John Warner act), ripe for abuse.
** This call may be monitored or recorded to insure the highest quality of your patriotism **
August 8th, 2007 at 12:09 pmPLC, I’d be surprised if the troops haven’t been watched since Day One.
Comment by Zooey
_____________________
True. Actually, I hoped this question might shift Anon’s attention. No such luck, though.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:09 pmWell for some reason TP is deleting my comments.
Which is getting pretty old.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:10 pm** This call may be monitored or recorded to insure the highest quality of your patriotism **
Comment by Wayne — August 8, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
**snort**
Busy day, better get the heck outta here. Later!
August 8th, 2007 at 12:12 pmWell for some reason TP is deleting my comments.
Which is getting pretty old.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
I am copying anything long before I hit post, because the same thing happening here. Think something weird is up with their filter.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:14 pmThis ANON character is clearly just a right wing troll.
If you think I’m wrong, ask yourself, why he’s in a blog, telling everyone to “stop talking”.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:14 pmwhy do our tics continue to think they can make it up as they go?
August 8th, 2007 at 12:17 pmI watched it on C-SPAN. I do know that Congress is no longer in session, and that the FISA Bill was passed with some Dems now saying that they didn’t know what was in it. Glenn Greenwald said it best.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:18 pmI am copying anything long before I hit post, because the same thing happening here. Think something weird is up with their filter.
Comment by Wayne — August 8, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
Really? Thanks Wayne. I didn’t think I was being overly pugnastic in my posts.
Just my usual charming self.
:D
August 8th, 2007 at 12:21 pmThis is my opinion, and remember I like anarchists ideas (far, far, far left):
After thousands of civilians killed, soldiers killed for whatever reason they come up with this week, stripping rights out of citizens Congressmen opposing the current admin´s actions should beat the hell out of the people endorsing these activities, with fists and clubs. Yes, like japanese use to do. That will teach to NOT F*CK with people´s will.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:24 pm“Picking his nose†is an option also – and about as idiotic. Sestak, all by his lonesome, could not have “used impeachment†which can be a lengthy process to “shut down this billâ€. You are sounding more and more like a neocon trying to sound progressive initially so you can stir up trouble. So, see this longest finger? Focus on that.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) — August 8, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
lol. He’s a right wing hack PLC, “in-cog-neato”.
His plan is a little reverse psychology, to try to get us to shout down any late whistleblowers message, and obscure the crimes of Bush by trying to silence discussion of them.
We all know by now, that the blogs do play a role in the elections and the political process. Why? Because at the end of the day, its not a blog, its just ANOTHER medium for the voice of the people, which influences candidates and their positions.
Anon is simply trying to deflate that effect by trying to sweep things under the rug. He’s a troll. Nothing more.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:26 pm“I watched it on C-SPAN. I do know that Congress is no longer in session, and that the FISA Bill was passed with some Dems now saying that they didn’t know what was in it. Glenn Greenwald said it best.
Comment by Marcus Aurelius — August 8, 2007 @ 12:18 pm”
Really????
So how many stood up and spoke out against this bill????
August 8th, 2007 at 12:26 pmNotice he’s in here telling everyone to shut up, yet he’s posted more and longer comments than anyone here.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:28 pmSo how many stood up and spoke out against this bill????
Comment by RemoveBush — August 8, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
181 of them.
Only 41 of them actually voted for it, but that was enough to toss it over the rim.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:29 pmToo Late. Trying to revise it after returning from their recess is like trying to shut the barn door after the horse is 5 miles down the road. It’s obviously better to say no at first than to try to fix it up later, especially when Bush & his Congressional lap dogs will obstruct any and all efforts in the House and Senate.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:30 pm“181 of them.
Only 41 of them actually voted for it, but that was enough to toss it over the rim.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — August 8, 2007 @ 12:29 pm”
Not what I was asking Anon!!!
I know how many voted AGAINST it.
Since he said he watched the debate, I wanted him to tell me how many spoke out against this bill on the floor.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:30 pmSorry.
Too Late. Trying to revise it after returning from their recess is like trying to shut the barn door after the horse is 5 miles down the road. It’s obviously better to say no at first than to try to fix it up later, especially when Bush & his Congressional lap dogs will obstruct any and all efforts in the House and Senate.
Comment by Uncle Ho — August 8, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
Not to mention the fact that since they did authorize it, Bush’s lawyers can now argue that “if it was so illegal, then why’d they reauthorize it, AFTER the question of its legality came up”.
It was a stupid move by Congress. A stupid, stupid move.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:33 pmWith their shocking surrender over President Bush’s draconian new FISA law this weekend, Congressional Democrats snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. They not only had the votes to safeguard American civil liberties and prevent the legalization of past Bush White House criminality. On FISA as we knew it before August 5, 2007, Democrats had the law – and public opinion – on their side.
For the details, see:
August 8th, 2007 at 12:34 pm“Democrats Snatch Defeat from Jaws of Victory on FISA.”
“the only thing that can save it is Impeachment.
What options have you rejected?
August 8th, 2007 at 12:41 pm“This Constitution is currently gone”
You’ll need to convince me. A document that exists cannot be “gone.” The issue is the conduct: that is evidence.
One document exists; the violations of the Constitution does not mean the Constitution is “gone”; the violations are something else: Evidence.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:42 pmThe war on the constitution is over. The constitution lost. Might as well vote Republican next year. Don’t want to get tossed in Gitmo for being a Dem.
Cowards. Every last one of ‘em who voted for this bill. Cowards and criminals.
I’m so disgusted with this country. If I could find a job in Canada…
August 8th, 2007 at 12:42 pm“the only thing we can do is vote them out and apply pressure on other members of Congress to keep bringing this up.”
This suggests we only have “one” option. How do you explain that?
Consider: 10th Amendment reserves all powers to We the People which have not been delegated to the US government or reserved to the states. Contrary to your assertion, there is not “one” optoin; but many options.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:44 pm“could not have “used impeachment†which can be a lengthy process to “shut down this billâ€.
No, starting a charge of impeachment, is not a “lengthy” process: It is a single act. It is privileged. That trumps all business.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:45 pmI live in Minneapolis, and despite my US Representative Ellison and the Representative from St. Paul both voting NO to Bush’s demands (and the throngs of others), Senator Klobuchar (D-MN) voted YES to Bush’s demands.
We’ve changed our lexicon up here in Minnesota to reflect this.
We don’t go take a dump anymore, we go take a Klobuchar.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:45 pmPlease write/phone/email your representative and confirm their vote, let them know your opposition to renewing ANYTHING that looks like this in six months.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:45 pmThat is something you can do. Put them on notice that you’ll be watching for thier speech on the Floor of the House next time this comes around.
I’m exercising the option of ignoring anonymous troll droppings.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:46 pmargue that “if it was so illegal, then why’d they reauthorize it, AFTER the question of its legality came upâ€.
This assumes they’ll “argue” anything. A court would not recognize this bill as lawful. Where do you prompse OLC “argue” this?
They’re not responding to subpoenas.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:47 pmThis is silly: “The constitution lost. Might as well vote Republican next year.”
You have no idea what you’re suggesting: People might take you seriously. If it’s “lost” why are you still posting? I think its because you believe the opposite: there is hope. Other wise you wouldn’ve given up.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:49 pm“Put them on notice that you’ll be watching for thier speech on the Floor of the House next time this comes around.”
Remind them of 5 USC 3331, oath of office: they can be prosecuted for bills like this. The Grand Jury can, as the President has done, ignore precedent.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:50 pmWhatever hope I had in this Dem controlled Congress has not completely evaporated.
These people suck!
I hope everyone enjoyed their freedom while they had it. Freedom, democracy, and the entire republic has vanished under the Toy Emperor. And the Dems enabled it!!!
I never thought I’d see the day. I felt our country had more stability than this.
It’s a terrible thing to see the USA willfully and arrogantly flushed down the toilet.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:52 pm#131 – Mistype. Should have read: Whatever hope I had in this Dem controlled Congress has now completely evaporated.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:53 pm“I hope everyone enjoyed their freedom while they had it.”
If we had “no” freedoms, then we wouldn’t be able to post here. Please, it’s not over. We can fix this. Who still has hope that something can be done? There are many options. I can’t make you keep going; you have to want to continue.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:54 pmJohn F. Kennedy wrote a book titled ‘Profiles in Courage’ in which people took a courageous stand for something. If JFK were alive today, he would write another book, about Congressional Democrats, titled ‘ Profiles in Cowardice’.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:55 pm“Whatever hope I had in this Dem controlled Congress has now completely evaporated.”
Then perhaps — today, and before the 2008 election — a plan could be implemented: What to do to encourage the GOP and DNC Members of Congress — all of them — to leave their parties, and create a new third party within Congress. Then the DNC and GOP leadership will be irrelevant.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:55 pm“You’ll need to convince me. A document that exists cannot be “gone.†The issue is the conduct: that is evidence.
One document exists; the violations of the Constitution does not mean the Constitution is “goneâ€; the violations are something else: Evidence.
Comment by Anon — August 8, 2007 @ 12:42 pm”
You make a REDICULOUS assertion!
Because a document exists means it is not gone, is about the most rediculous thing you have said so far.
Here are most of the “document” that does not exist anymore…..
SINCE TP IS DELETEING ALL MY POSTS THAT HAVE FACTS, HERE ARE THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE “GONE”.
Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.Amendment 6 – Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Amendment 8 – Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Now one can argue that they are not completley gone, but if they are enve abused a little I then say they are gone since they are not uheld! Since you seem to believe that a “document” is not gone because it exists, then tell me why it is that these Amendments are no longer relevant under all the current laws prodcued??????
So if a large portion of the Constitution is gutted, then is it not GONE???? For the Constitution is not soley comprised of one or two parts, but are a WHOLE!!!!!
August 8th, 2007 at 12:55 pmAnon is a troll, who likes to hear himself talk.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:57 pmBy saying the “Constitution is gone” the poster is simply speaking “figuratively”.
Anon knows this, but chooses to post endless debates on grammatic minutia.
He’s a troll. Nothing more.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:59 pmExample.
Suppose I said “Anon’s brain is gone”.
Obviously his body could not function without the regulation of the brain.
So if I said his brain is gone, did I mean his brain is literally removed from his body? The brainless anon would say so.
But anyone with a brain knows, that what I am really saying, is he’s just an idiot.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:01 pmThe Congressman should also have known that after an emergency wire tap the Government didn’t need to seek a warrant from the FISA court 72 hours after the emergency occurred. The old rule was 120 days. Three months not three days.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:10 pmNice confession, about four days too late for a gut check. This cabal just wipes their ass with the constiution everyday, and you let it continue. Thanks for protecting the country and our civil liberties, you’re doin’ a helva job.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:10 pm“if a large portion of the Constitution is gutted”
There is a difference beween ignoring the Constitution; and makign a new one. Also, your assertion is speculative. There is no evidence the Constitution is gone.
It still exists.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:13 pm“The Congressman should also have known that after an emergency wire tap the Government didn’t need to seek a warrant from the FISA court 72 hours after the emergency occurred. The old rule was 120 days. Three months not three days.
Comment by Kevin Good — August 8, 2007 @ 1:10 pm”
Actually…… It’s 15 days, during a time of war…… Since the AUMF is being used as a declaration of war, then this part of the law is also valid with the AUMF.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001811—-000-.html
Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:14 pm143. AUMF doesn’t trump the Constittuion; nor does it amend the 4th Amendment.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:15 pmThis is circular: “if a large portion of the Constitution is gutted, then is it not GONE”
August 8th, 2007 at 1:16 pmAs you ponder these issues, consider something: Do we know the opt-out provisions the President/AG are using?
Even though the President and AG “have what they want,” do we really know the situations where they would illegally assert — despite these illegal chagnes — that FISA does not apply?
Consider the Opt-Out provisions which OLC has discussed; and the basis for doing.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:19 pm“This is circular: “if a large portion of the Constitution is gutted, then is it not GONEâ€
Comment by Anon — August 8, 2007 @ 1:16 pm”
Nope!!!!
The Constitution is a WHOLE, not a selection of what one determines is active.
If many of the parts of the Constitution are not being upheld and discarded, then the WHOLE document is discarded since it is a WHOLE!
Without the WHOLE, then the Constitution is not a Constitution. It is a “selective” document, and that is not what the Constitution is. It is ALL or NONE!
You can’t have Amendment 2 without Amemdment 1.
You can’t have Amendment 9 without Amendment 8, and so on.
So if the Amendments are gone, that I have pointed out and have proof of, then what is the Constitution???? Since it is a WHOLE, missing the Amendments I pointed out makes is GONE!
August 8th, 2007 at 1:31 pmThis argument is circular: “if the Amendments are gone, that I have pointed out and have proof of, then what is the Constitution”
You offer no proof of a lawful Amendment; make no provision for the court declaring this Act void. Congress has no power to make an Amendment “gone”. That requires a lawful Amendment. Hasn’t happened. Your “proof” doesn’t support your assertion. You’re not making headway. This is your argument. It isn’t working.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:37 pmThis incorrecdtly suggests that if some “take” something, that the “entire” document is gone. That is a meaningless argument: “It is ALL or NONE!”
The “all or none” argument has no basis in law. The Constitution still exists. Whether the Congress and President ignore it is a separate matter. Their bills they pass/acts they sign are not “evidence” of holes; but evidence of oath of office violations.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:39 pmJoe Sestak, Patrick Murphy and Tim Holden… Pennsylvania is proud that you stood your ground and voted “Ney”, a vote that protects our Consitution and the American people. Shame on Senator Bob Casey from Pennsylvania. Senator Bob Casey preferred to look weak on protecting the Constitution then to look falsely strong on terror.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:39 pmTP keep’s eating post’s…..fix please….
August 8th, 2007 at 1:41 pmConsider this example: Suppose you own a house and have a deed to the house. Suppose someone breaks into your home. They have vioalated the law. Supposed they pass a rule that says your deed is invalid.
what then? Nothing. You still have the deed. Their “rule” is not valid. Their house breaking isn’t “destroying” your deed. Their “rule” is not enforceable against your deed. You still have the deed, regardess whehter others recognnize it. All actions contrary to that deed do not invalidate the deed; but become evidence of the vioaltions against the deed.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:46 pm“That requires a lawful Amendment. Hasn’t happened. Your “proof†doesn’t support your assertion. You’re not making headway. This is your argument. It isn’t working.
Comment by Anon — August 8, 2007 @ 1:37 pm”
NO it is YOU who is not making headway…….
When Americans can be held without a trial for 4 years, then Amendment 6 is gone.
When Americans are TORCHERED, then Amendment 8 is gone.
I’m not going through them again for your SLOW mind……….
Just because they have not been REMOVED from the document does not mean they are not GONE!
Are you a 2 year old??? Because your acting like it…..
If a law, in this case an Amendment, is disregarded and not upheld then it is gone. Who cares if it is still on the books or not, it is gone.
OK, so your telling me that the Michigan law that says ONLY MISSIONARY position can be performed during sex is not gone??????
It is GONE! Despite it still being on the books.
If a law, or Amendment, is not upheld then it dissapears. IT’S GONE!!!!!
Once the law has been performed enough times WITHOUT being upheld, then it becomes OBSOLETE. Even if it is on the books, it is GONE! LAW has plenty of precidence in this area to prove this.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:47 pm“When Americans can be held without a trial for 4 years, then Amendment 6 is gone.
No, it is there. The detentions are illegal.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:47 pm“If a law, in this case an Amendment, is disregarded and not upheld then it is gone.”
You’re incorrectly assuming that all Judicial “recognition” of what is not lawful are unreviewable. Your argument is faulty.
The Constitution remains. Judicial officers who refuse to enforce it, can be prosecuted.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:49 pm“Once the law has been performed enough times WITHOUT being upheld, then it becomes OBSOLETE.”
The Supreme Law cannot be violated. if the Supreme law is ignored, then the basis for the Congressional power is gone.
You’re arguing against the US government’s illegal activity. OK, you’re making headway. There are options.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:50 pm“what then? Nothing. You still have the deed. Their “rule†is not valid. Their house breaking isn’t “destroying†your deed. Their “rule†is not enforceable against your deed. You still have the deed, regardess whehter others recognnize it. All actions contrary to that deed do not invalidate the deed; but become evidence of the vioaltions against the deed.
Comment by Anon — August 8, 2007 @ 1:46 pm”
Son, I suggest that if you are ever in any trouble that you hire a lawyer because you certainly are NOT one!!!!
Your example is assinine!!!! If a law is written stating you have no deed, then you have no deed!!!!! Who cares if you have a piece of paper!!!! The LAW, over rides your piece of paper!!!
I-D-I-O-T
August 8th, 2007 at 1:51 pm“LAW has plenty of precidence in this area to prove this.”
There is no lawful precedent recognizing lawlessness. That is not the basis for legitiamte government. You appear to be arguing for anarchy; and that all illegal government actions consistent with anarchy are unreviewable. That is not valid.
Judicial orders which ignore the Supreme Law is not precedent: It is unenforceable.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:51 pm“If a law is written stating you have no deed, then you have no deed!!!!!”
If you still have the deed, but that deed is illegally taken away, then the law is not enforceable.
The deed is the Constitution. A majority ahve no power to pass laws ignoring the Constitution. It is an illegal act of Congress. Punishable with prosecutions. It is not lawful to follow it.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:53 pmThe Supreme Law — Constitution — is supreme.
An Act of Congress may not destroy the Supreme Law. That is impressibbile.
This is without foundation: “The LAW, over rides your piece of paper!!!
The law — an Act of Congress — which vioaltes teh Supreme Law — the deed, or piece of paper in this example — is not enforcable. Congress cannot pass laws which destroy the Constitution. That is illegal. Contrary ot their oath.
The acts of Congress which ignore the Constitution does not make the Constitution gone. It is somethign else: That act is not precedent; it is evidence of their illegal activity.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:54 pm“Comment by Anon — August 8, 2007 @ 1:53 pm”
Son, you need to stop TALKING IN “THEORY” and start LIVING in reality!!!!!
There are MANY laws written that are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, but they are UPHELD even by the Supreme Court!!!!!
Get off your high horse and start living in the REAL world!
The AUMF is ALSO CONSTITUTIONALLY ILLEGAL, but it has been considered LEGAL by the Supreme Court as well……..
So your arguement is childish!!!!!
August 8th, 2007 at 1:57 pmThe GOP and DNC don’t need to do anything if tey can convince people to not think.
They can pass illegal acts, and get the citiZEnry to give up what cannot be taken away: These are nto laws which Congress “gave” us. These rights are inalieable. They cannot be taken away.
Whether the government recognizes those rights is meaningless. The right exists. Regardless who ignroes it.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:58 pm“MANY laws written that are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, but they are UPHELD even by the Supreme Court!!!!!”
Examples. Give some examples.
Consider the Guantanamo trials. Did the Supreme Court uphold the Constitution, Geneva, and other Supreme Law; or did it pu the MCA above the Constitution? As with teh AUMF, the SUpreme Court did not say the AUMF trumped the Congress or the President or the Constitution.
You need to cite case law. You’re not doing that. Find a lawyer. This is your argument. Let’s see your cases you want to discuss.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:59 pm“Whether the government recognizes those rights is meaningless. The right exists. Regardless who ignroes it.
Comment by Anon — August 8, 2007 @ 1:58 pm”
Tell you what then….
Stop paying your taxes, and in ten to fifteen years come back here and tell me how life in prison is going……
Taxes are ILLEGAL, at least for personal income.
Also, the IRS, Federal Reserve, and many other organizations the Congress has written into law are ILLEGAL, but they are and have become PRESIDENCE!!!!
August 8th, 2007 at 2:00 pmAUMF doesn’t trump the Constitution: “AUMF is ALSO CONSTITUTIONALLY ILLEGAL, but it has been considered LEGAL by the Supreme Court as well”
You point to nothing in teh AUMF that says the AUMF trumps the Constitution. As enforced, the Court recognizes the AUMF does not trump the Constitution or Article 1 Section 8 powers.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:01 pmThis is not related to a discussion of a FISA Act in re Constitution: “Taxes are ILLEGAL, at least for personal income.”
August 8th, 2007 at 2:01 pm“You need to cite case law. You’re not doing that. Find a lawyer. This is your argument. Let’s see your cases you want to discuss.
Comment by Anon — August 8, 2007 @ 1:59 pm”
You are TRUELY a TROLL……
Only selecting pieces of my post!!!!
I PROVIDED YOU WITH ONE MAJOR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THAT WAS ILLEGAL….. THE AUMF!
August 8th, 2007 at 2:02 pmYou’re not citing case law to support your position: ” the IRS, Federal Reserve, and many other organizations the Congress has written into law are ILLEGAL, but they are and have become PRESIDENCE!!!!
P R E C E D E N T. Find it. YOu haven’t.
You don’t have an argument.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:02 pm“I PROVIDED YOU WITH ONE MAJOR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THAT WAS ILLEGAL….. THE AUMF!”
Show which clauses are illegal. Your job. An assertion is not evidence.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:03 pmThink again people ’cause this won’t be over in six months.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:04 pmYour examples aren’t support your assertions. You haven’t proven the Constitution is gone. You’re relying on nothing to prove nothing.
Haven’t convinced anyone the Constitution — when ignored — is gone. That’s like asking someone to believe if the stars are ignored by an act of Congress, then the stars go away.
Inalienable rights cannot be taken away; just like an Act of Congress cannot change the position of the stars. To truly create a hole in the Constituion or “make it go away” the Congress and States woud have to joinly agree to Amend it; of the public could agree to support a New Constitution. You’re not supporting your arguments.
Capitol letters don’t convince. Reasoning and law will. It’s impossible for you to argue — successfully — that simply ignoring the Constitution makes it go away. It is the Supreme Law. Whether it is enforced or not has no bearing on whether it does or does not exist.
If you woul dlike to believe — given an illegal act of Congress — that that Act must be followed, go ahead. You’re following illegal acts. There is no legal defense for you. It is clearly illegal.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:12 pmChoose whehter you want to be an enemy of the Constitution; or with the Constitution.
It has not gone away. The Congress doesn’t need to argue anything. it appers many are willing to argue that something which exists is nto there.
That is delusional. The Constitution remains. The rights are inalienable. If you want to believe that your inalienable rights — which cannot be taken away — are “gone” because someone illegally says they are gone, you’re free to believe that. But belief is not the same as Supreme Law.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:14 pmEither you defend this constitution; or you are an enemy. Choose.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:15 pmI am with this existing Constitution. If you are against me, then you are asserting you are an enemy of the Constitution.
Live with those consequenes. It remains to be seen whether that choice is one that is adjudicated.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:17 pmChoose wisely.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:17 pmAnon; Bush/Cheney & the Federalist society maintain that Bush is the unitary executive and IS the law. Just what do you think all those ’signing statements’ the self-appointed decider is all about?
August 8th, 2007 at 2:20 pmBush/Cheney & the Federalist society maintain that Bush is the unitary executive and IS the law. Just what do you think all those ’signing statements’ the self-appointed decider is all about?
You asking what: For an opinion on their legality; how does this relate to FISA? It is incorrect to assert that the President “is” the law. That is contrary to written law. An assertion is not fact.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:22 pmIf a “singing statement” was ‘the law” or “bush was the lawA”, why would Bush go to Congress to get changes to FISA?
That makes no sense.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:24 pm“Once the law has been performed enough times WITHOUT being upheld, then it becomes OBSOLETE.â€
Actually, that statement is not true. There are archaic laws on the books and if the authorities decide to inforce these laws, they certainly have the right to do so. Unless there are specific end dates included in the laws, laws remain on the books and can be enforce.
I’m in agreement with “Anon” on this issue.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:25 pmWhen we talk of the “laws not being enforced” that isn’t related to whether the law exists or not; but relates to a declination decision.
Attorneys have a basis to decline to prosecute when the law is not enforced. But that doesn’t strip them of their oath; nor does it make the law “gone”.
The issue is unrelated to the law, Constituoin, or rights; But whether the prosecutor chooses to advance a case. Just because someone has vioalted teh law, doesn’t mean a prosecutor will attempt to prosecute. They have to consider other issues related to evidence, witness availability, and many other factors beyond this discussion of FISA.
Again, if someone wants to argue “ignorign the Constituion” makes it ‘gone”; you’re not goign to win. BUt, your assertions aren’t going to be left unchallenged. Prepare to lose.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:28 pmAnon; Bush’s ’signing statements’ are his interpretion of the law, i.e. he gets to pick and choose what law he will enforce or ignore. In other words, he decides what the law is. (another term for that is dictator).
August 8th, 2007 at 2:28 pm#
Anon; Bush/Cheney & the Federalist society maintain that Bush is the unitary executive and IS the law. Just what do you think all those ’signing statements’ the self-appointed decider is all about?
Comment by Uncle Ho — August 8, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
Uncle Ho – thanks for the bit of humor.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:30 pmExecutive has no judicial power: Anon; Bush’s ’signing statements’ are his interpretion of the law, i.e. he gets to pick and choose what law he will enforce or ignore. In other words, he decides what the law is. (another term for that is dictator).
Contrary to your assertion, he does not get to “pick and choose”. He only has the power — before signing — to either sign, or not sign.
The issue is suble: For a dictator to previal, they do not need to do anythign: theyonly need to control your mind, and make you believ ethey have power.
This President has no judicila power. That judicila power was only delegated through Article III to non-executives. Separation of Powers means the Exeutive has no power to interpret the law; only the power to enforce the law as the legislature enacts it, and he signs it.
His signing statemetnes are not law, nor are they enforceable. HWheter legal counsel wants to assert the opposite is meaningless. They can be prosecuted for violating their oath. Lawyers do not have judicila power: They are only lawyers. Power belongs with the court. This President has not let any of his statement or personnel appear before the Congress to respond to this narrow issue. See Leahy’s letter of today.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:32 pm“He only has the power — before signing — to either sign, or not sign.’
This is incorrect. The president only has one power: Executive. Rather, this is an option to sign or not sign.
Options do not create new powers. Article II assigns only one power to the President: Executive power. Article I assigns mutiple powers to the Legislature.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:34 pmDon’t miss the point: Just because the Congress and President ignore the Constitution, doesn’t mean the Constitution is gone. Rather, their conduct is evidence.
Ignoring a requirement doesn’t make it disapper; it means the person is knowingly making a decision to ignore what they had the duty to pay attention to. This warrants an upward revision during sentencing.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:37 pmAnon – relax. Uncle Ho is humoring you. We know that Bush has no judicial power and that his signing statements are meaningless and that Bush doesn’t have the power to pick and choose which laws he will follow and which ones he won’t follow.
Just 530 f**king, painful days until January 20, 2009.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:38 pmThis FISA Act — which illegally delegates judicila power to the AG; and ignores the warrant requirement — is evidence for ajudicating 5 USC 3331 in re oath of office violations in re Members of Congress and DOJ Staff personnel.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:38 pmGreat, then let’s prosecute the Members of Congress who think — and illegally act — as if the President does:
Despite their oath, they appear to have done exactly the opposite: Pretending he does have judicla power; that his signing statemetns are law; and that the President can pick and choose.
How do they explain providing funding for what the President is ilegally doing; and removing/not using all lawufl options? People inside the Executive Branch are following illegal orders; and contractors are following illegal waivers to the Constitutional warrant requirement.
Congress has no plan. Time to remind them — with prosecutions — what their duties are. Waiting until 2008 is not the only option.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:41 pmThis illusion — that Congress “can’t” do anything is a farce. The Committees could zero-out funding, and erquire the GOP to passa Amendments to add money back. The Chairs of the House and Senate could agree — before releasing the bill from committees — to like language; mkaing the conference committee, and issue of GOP blocking of that confernce, irrelevant. The Congress could — today — say
August 8th, 2007 at 2:43 pmBUT YOU DIDN’T…. Why? Because the spineless, wimpy, talk a big game Democrats know better than to mess with Bush over terror. They’ll lose in the end. See 2004 for that.
Comment by Democrats are LIARS — August 8, 2007 @ 10:59 am
————
And 2006. Right? RIGHT??
August 8th, 2007 at 2:51 pmThe issue is very subtle: The WH and GOP don’t have to argue anything. Based on the above discussion, it appers a majority of Americans are willing to do the WH’s bidding: Make and believe non-sense.
Dictators can only prevail if they rely on, and you agree to follow, non-sense. The law is based on reason.
The clash — which the President can avoid — is getting people to realize that the dictatorh is not above the law. Even if the Constituion were “gone,” we are left with the Declaration of Indpendence and Magna Charta: Both affirming the same — Man is below law.
Best wishes. I’ve enjoyed the interaction, and was hoping that more would have participated. remember: We the People are the soverign; where logic fails, that argument collapses. The President can only prevail if you give up your mind; and rely on non-sense. Choose reason and the law.
The Constitution remains alive. Their actions do not destroy it; their actions are evidence of their 5 uSC 3331 vioaltions. Good luck. We the People and this Constitution shall prevail over Congress, this President, and the reckless American legal community.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:53 pm“Contrary to your assertion, he does not get to “pick and chooseâ€. He only has the power — before signing — to either sign, or not sign.
The issue is suble: For a dictator to previal, they do not need to do anythign: theyonly need to control your mind, and make you believ ethey have power.
This President has no judicila power. That judicila power was only delegated through Article III to non-executives. Separation of Powers means the Exeutive has no power to interpret the law; only the power to enforce the law as the legislature enacts it, and he signs it.
His signing statemetnes are not law, nor are they enforceable. HWheter legal counsel wants to assert the opposite is meaningless. They can be prosecuted for violating their oath. Lawyers do not have judicila power: They are only lawyers. Power belongs with the court. This President has not let any of his statement or personnel appear before the Congress to respond to this narrow issue. See Leahy’s letter of today.
Comment by Anon — August 8, 2007 @ 2:32 pm”
Anon, you are ABSOLUTELY INSANE!!!!!
Firsr, the President has provided MULTIPLE signing statements that have NEGATED law passed by Congress…….
Such as the McCain NO TORCHER law!
Bush signed a statement saying so long as he felt he did not need to!!!!
You can keep SPEAKING IN THEORY, but this is REALITY!!!
Snap the HELL OUT OF IT!!!!!
We ALL KNOW HOW it is SUPPOSE to work!!!! We are TELLING YOU HOW IT WORKS!!!!
Unless YOU have served in the god danm military and taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foriegn or domestic, don’t go telling me shit about who is an enemy!
I’ll slap your childish little ass back on the ground!!!!!
August 8th, 2007 at 3:07 pm“Actually, that statement is not true. There are archaic laws on the books and if the authorities decide to inforce these laws, they certainly have the right to do so. Unless there are specific end dates included in the laws, laws remain on the books and can be enforce.
I’m in agreement with “Anon†on this issue.
Comment by Cats R Fly Fishn — August 8, 2007 @ 2:25 pm”
Actually it is true!!!!!
I can guarantee you that if I was arrested for NON MISSIONARY sex in Michigan, that it would be thrown out IMMEDIATELY!!!!!
PRESIDENCE!!!!!!
Because it is on the books does NOT mean that it is ENFORCABLE!!!!!
Has ANYONE OF YOU been to a library and picked up a law book????
August 8th, 2007 at 3:10 pmSomeone please make Anon go away.
August 8th, 2007 at 3:11 pmFISA was enacted in 1978 to address the far-ranging criminal activities of the Nixon administration and a whole lot of Republicans. (Watch “All the President’s Men” again to get a feel for why FISA was enacted).
Reagan chipped away at FISA, as did George H.W. Bush.
Destruction of FISA by the Republicans was temporarily stopped while Bill Clinton was president.
But as soon as Bush and Cheney entered the White House, they immediately set about destroying FISA, bypassing FISA, subverting FISA.
(Watch “All the President’s Men” again, and get a feel for why giving Alberto Gonzales unchecked and unlimited spying powers just may well have cost Democrats the presidential election in November 2008, as well as control on Congress).
Remember, Democrats might show up on an illegal Republican “caging” list and have their right to vote challenged, but if enough Democrats (especially Black Americans) in 2008 are falsely charged, convicted and “caged” in a prison cell, then they lose the right to vote. And if enough of this happens in swing states, then just this little shift in voter rolls probably will give Karl Rove the chance to “fix” another election, and Alberto Gonzales, as head of the Justice Department with no judicial FISA restraints on his secret spying activities, the chance to help steal another election.
I know, sounds paranoid, but after watching “All the President’s Men,” it is obvious that the Republican “win at all costs” Party hasn’t changed in the past 40 years.
August 8th, 2007 at 3:24 pmYes, they should have stood up and said, “NO MORE.” Voters will remember many of us are much more alert than before.
August 8th, 2007 at 4:06 pm“President has provided MULTIPLE signing statements that have NEGATED law passed by Congress”
Not legally. Follow his orders at your own peril. Clearly illegal orders: “Just followig orders” is not a defense.
August 8th, 2007 at 4:39 pm“Not legally. Follow his orders at your own peril. Clearly illegal orders: “Just followig orders†is not a defense.
Comment by Anon — August 8, 2007 @ 4:39 pm”
BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!!
YOUR an IGNORANT A$$!!!!
The Supreme Court has RULED several times that SIGNING STATEMENTS are LEGAL!!!!!!
I don’t care what YOU SAY!!!!!
I am certainly older than you, have served, and have read law books to know what I am talking about!!!!!
Of course “THEORETICALLY”, you are correct!!!!
But REALISTICALLY, YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!
Like I said before……. GROW UP!!!
August 8th, 2007 at 4:46 pmAnon, you really do not know what you talk about!!!!
Law is not your specialty, perhaps you should stick with your High School Algebra books????
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060109_bergen.html
The Supreme Court has paid close attention to presidential signing statements. Indeed, in two important decisions — the Chadha and Bowsher decisions – the Court relied in part on president signing statements in interpreting laws. Other federal courts, sources show, have taken note of them too.
August 8th, 2007 at 4:49 pm“The Supreme Court has paid close attention to presidential signing statements. Indeed, in two important decisions — the Chadha and Bowsher decisions – the Court relied in part on president signing statements in interpreting laws. Other federal courts, sources show, have taken note of them too.”
Comment by RemoveBush — August 8, 2007
Cite the case, not a commentary. Not working
August 8th, 2007 at 4:52 pm“The Supreme Court has paid close attention to presidential signing statements”
Give a court citation, not a law commentary.
August 8th, 2007 at 4:54 pm“President has provided MULTIPLE signing statements that have NEGATED law passed by Congressâ€
You haven’t proven this; and your argument isn’t working. YOu need to argue this; not make assertions.
Cite the langauge from the Supreme Court. You’re not doing that. can’t help you.
August 8th, 2007 at 4:56 pmAnd another one….
Signing statements have played a role in conflicts between the Executive and Legislative branches in the past. For example, President Franklin Roosevelt indicated in a signing statement in 1943, during World War II, that he felt Section 304 of the Urgent Deficiency Appropriations Act of 1943 (ch. 218, 57 Stat. 431, 450 (1943)) was unconstitutional, but that he had no choice but to sign the bill “to avoid delaying our conduct of the war.†He indicated that he would enforce the law, but if the law was attacked in court, the Attorney General was to side with the plaintiff and attack the statute rather than defend it. When such a lawsuit did occur, Congress had to appoint a special counsel to defend the statute in court. The matter ultimately went to the Supreme Court, which agreed with President Roosevelt and struck down the provision, citing his signing statement in the Court’s opinion ( United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946)).
August 8th, 2007 at 4:57 pmAnon, though you have good intentions you IGNORANCE is profound!!!!!
We are not talking about “THEORY”, we are talking REALITY!!!
August 8th, 2007 at 4:59 pmRemoveBush — August 8, 2007
Go to the law citations; and include what you are asserting as your legal authority. You’re not doing that. Cna’t help you.
Executive signing statements are a separte issue than this FISA Act. Whether you’re correct or not isn’t makign your case on the issue of “If the President ignores the constittuion does that make it go away.”
Your arguments are getting jumbled up.
August 8th, 2007 at 4:59 pm“Cite the case, not a commentary. Not working
Comment by Anon — August 8, 2007 @ 4:52 pm”
Your IGNORANCE, as I have pointed out multiple times is abundantly CLEAR…
The cases were sited in the very link, IF YOU BOTHERED TO READ!!!!
“in two important decisions — the Chadha and Bowsher decisions“
August 8th, 2007 at 5:00 pm“in two important decisions — the Chadha and Bowsher decisions“
Comment by RemoveBush — August 8, 2007
- – - – -
You need to go into the case, extrac from it what you are saying, and make your argument. You’re not doing that. Your just repating yourself.
1. Find a copy fo the case;
2. Make your argument;
3. Extract from that case what you believe supports your argument
4. Cite/quote the language from the opinion
5. Then conclude with what you are asserting the law is or is not saying relative to your power.
AFter you do that, then we’ll hvae a discussion about FISA; and you can make the case [a] a signing statement is relvant to the FISA Act just passed; or [b] A signing statement is law, even if the Congress and President have ignored the law.
You’re asserting the same thing, without making an argument. This is your argument to craft; not for others to craft. If you have another point, then start with your assertion, and back it up. Again, you’re repeating yourself, but not making an argument that can be reviewed using your cases.
If you want to continue to assert one things, that is fine; but you’re not citing the langaughe/nor quoting from the opinion. That is a flaw with your argument. Again, it’s your job to start from where you want to start; and conclude where you want to conclud: YOu’er not doing either — you’re asserting something, and not backing it up. GO to the case, get the language, and put your argument together.
I don’t thinkyou’re clear how your assertions are linked to the FISA; or to your points above. You may have a valid argument; or you may not. BUt until you craft one, we can’t have a dicsussion about whether your argument is or isn’t anything. You’re not being clear with what you are tryign to prove; or how it explains how a Constituion that is getting ignored is sudddenly something else or not. Again, this is your argument to make: You do the work. I’ll read it when you’ve finished. You’re not there yet. I can wait and return another day to review your argument.
August 8th, 2007 at 5:06 pmThese people are disgusting!
This is not the America I know and Love. I just hope we can get back on track after all the people stop hidding under thier tables!
Base your desicions on how you would like to leave the country to your loved ones after your gone.
Dem / rep – need to be voted out. dam snakes everyone of them.
August 8th, 2007 at 5:07 pmAnon, was it not YOU SHREDDING this Congressman because he did not do enough????
Well, let me turn the tables…..
This WHOLE mess is YOUR FAULT!!!!
You, as a citizen, could have done something!!! You could have went to DC and sat infront of the WH protesting all these ILLEGAL actions, but I’ll bet YOU DID NOT!!!!!
Yet you sure are quick to JUMP on someone who did do the right thing and vote NO!!!!
By your LOGIC, YOU are to blame because the President has produced signing statements negating law he has signed into law.
By allowing Bush to Torcher.
By allowing Bush to Rendition anyone.
By allowing Bush to steal votes during election time.
YOU have done all this, by your standard, because YOU (One person) did not do ALL you could have!!!!!
So you see, by YOUR OWN LOGIC you are a TRAITOR to this county!!!
August 8th, 2007 at 5:12 pm“Comment by Anon — August 8, 2007 @ 5:06 pm”
Sorry, but I provided the cases that show what I state……
If you want to dispute that, then YOU read the cases and provide a countering argument!!!!
I don’t have to SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU!
I simply have to provide the cases that have been used that provide the proof that there is PRESIDENCE!!!!
Like I said before….. You are just a KID that does not know how the world works, and your trying to argue law when you probably have never even picked up a law book or seen the inside of a court room…….
All I have to prove is that PRESIDENCE exists!!!! I have done that MULTIPLE times by listing THREE cases!!! Our laws are based on PRESIDENCE!!!!!
Something a KID would not know or understand…..
August 8th, 2007 at 5:18 pmI can guarantee you that if I was arrested for NON MISSIONARY sex in Michigan, that it would be thrown out IMMEDIATELY!!!!!
Actually, they can still haul your ass into jail. That doesn’t mean that the charge won’t be thrown out in court. If the law against non missionary sex is unconstitutional, then the law needs to be deleted from the books. As far as precidence, SCOTUS has recently ruled against precidence. So actually, our laws are a free for all. Boy Bush has ignored all the laws that he don’t fit his purpose. I still have faith in our Constitution and I believe that when all is said and done, our Constitution will survive, as written and not as dictated by the boy Bush and his cartel. If it doesn’t survive, then America is no longer America. It will have evolved into the very type of nation that Americans fight wars with and take the lives of our military.
August 8th, 2007 at 5:18 pm“Actually, they can still haul your ass into jail. That doesn’t mean that the charge won’t be thrown out in court. If the law against non missionary sex is unconstitutional, then the law needs to be deleted from the books. As far as precidence, SCOTUS has recently ruled against precidence. So actually, our laws are a free for all. Boy Bush has ignored all the laws that he don’t fit his purpose. I still have faith in our Constitution and I believe that when all is said and done, our Constitution will survive, as written and not as dictated by the boy Bush and his cartel. If it doesn’t survive, then America is no longer America. It will have evolved into the very type of nation that Americans fight wars with and take the lives of our military.
Comment by Cats R Fly Fishn — August 8, 2007 @ 5:18 pm”
I did not say that I would/could not be arrested….. I said that it would not be UPHELD!!!!
And yes the SCOTUS did RECENTLY disregard presidence in the abortion case, but that does not set a presidence to all cases. Though, it could if the trend continues……
Unlike Anon, I have served this country and have a stronger bond for what the Constitution means as I served to defend it.
Anon is arguing that it’s illegal, and not looking at the big picture….. Much of what this administration has been illegal…… By the Courts, Congress, and the American people not doing anything about it has LAGITIMISED it and has in effect made it legal.
Because when the next president comes in, they cannot do anything to that president for doing the same thing……. PRESIDENCE has been set!!!! If they don’t stop it now, it cannot be stopped…..
But Anon, just does not get it…….. He thinks that when the next president comes in that the Congress can make them stop…. Not the case….. All the next president has to do is say “if it was illegal, then they should have done something when Bush was doing it.”. Because by failing to do so, indirectly states that they ACCEPT and AGREE that it is legal.
That is what I am saying, but the KID just does not get it no matter how I spell it out for him/her.
August 8th, 2007 at 5:29 pmCats R Fly Fishn — August 8, 2007
I have two general concerns: If people want to get “alarmed” over smething that is a non-issue, then get motivated to act, that can be a trap.
second, those who use convoltued arguments are asking others to believe in non-sense when the “solution” is implemented.
I’ll be glad to read a coherent argument. WE don’t have one yet. WE can only look at what is on the TP board. Pointing elsewhere isn’t creating aa cohernt argument.
The problem is when the PResident’s absurdity is argued as a reason to get “excited”; yet the President isn’t making any argument — others “Excited” about non-issues are asking others to mobilize for a dubious reason. That doesn’t work.
Why is the DNC-GOP membership doing the PResident’s arguing for him? WE still have a Constitution; and the FISA Act passed is illegal. THe President’s illegal signing staements are not law; and his assertions of what is lweful are not enforceable when those ordersa are clearly illegal.
There’s no defense of saying, “BUt the PResident has a signing statement.” No, that’s not a defense; but asks us to believe that th ePresident — on assertion alone — is the law. No, those orders relying on his illegal signing statements/acts/bills/orders re not lawflu.
If the Actd is lafwul, and the orders are laweful, that’s a spearte issue. BUt I reject the asesrtion of “Just because the PREsident said it, it must be trust and lawful.” That’s not aa valid premise, argument, nor a defense to illegal activity or Constitutional violations. Just because the President says someting, it doesn’t mean it’s lwful; and it doesn’t mean that his orders — on his direction aone — should be followed, especially when the Act and his signing statemetns related to FISA are illegal, defy the Constution, and illegally assert judicial power.
If the COurt wants to enter the arena and say the 4th Amendment doesn’t include the warrant requirement, that opinion is also illegal. THe Constution is the sUreme Law. The Sureme COurt isn’t the one that picks and chooses from the Constitution; nor can it lawfully require anyone to believe in new Constitutions.
August 8th, 2007 at 5:34 pmWhy do people blame the Democrats who voted no, instead of the ones who voted yes? Do you all believe in a totalitarian-style of party that all votes in lock step? Because if you do, the Republican party has a spot for you! Or, you could just move to a totalitarian-style country, like North Korea. I hear Kim Jong-Il’s party all votes in lock step too. If you’re mad, focus your anger on those Democrats who voted yes on the bill. It’s that simple. Many of them are freshmen, teach them an important lesson because it’s obvious that they need to learn. Oh yeah, and on the Senate side, the Democrats have a fake “ally” in Liebermann and a guy in the hospital who cannot vote. That gives them 48 votes. That’s not the majority, people.
August 8th, 2007 at 5:37 pm“I have served this country and have a stronger bond for what the Constitution means as I served to defend it.
Your status is a separte issue than your argument.
If you want to bring up your status, that is intersting, but doesn’t support your view.
If you want to separte your argument from yourself and your status, that is your choice. Please don’t ask others to believe your words becuse of your status; your argument — not your status — is the issue.
YOu can’t use your status as verbal armor rto what appears to be a defective argument. IT doesn’t mean you’re stupid, or that you’re a bad person; it means ony that the way you’ve crafted the bridge from your assertion to your conclusion isn’t steady.
That’s not a problem with you; its a problem with your argument. However, if you would like people to stand on your bridge, despite it being weak, then that is a secondary issue. My caution is: Do not be blind and follow someone who has a weak argument beacuse of their status. whther they are the President or anyone in teh Miltary — illegal orders are not a defense.
Nuremburg did adjudicate war crimes against civilian legal counsel, officres of the court, judges, and civilian policy advisors. FISA Acts are lawful when they are consitent with the laws of the land; but when illegal violations of the 4th Amendmetn are used to [a] engage in illegal abuse, by way of using illegally captured information for war crimes or prisoner abguse; or [b] justify prisoner abuse and rendition because the President “said so”, that is not a elgally stable argument.
AGain, whether you are or are not of a particular status or background is meaningless. We can only rely on your rgument on the TP scren/page. Your argument, and your bridge are questionable.
However, if you would like to argue, because of your status, that we should not question the argument, then I must politely decline to approach your bridge; and warn others. I’m not going to follow you. Ever.
I’m wth the Constitution. I’m not sure where your bridge and argument hope to lead anyone; or what problem you’re trying to solve. Bluntly, based on your responses above, I cannot trust you to develop a plan, understand a problem, our outline a coherent vision. You may be able to do it. But you’re not being clear.
Your problem, appears in my view, is you don’t know what you’re attempting to do: WHer do you want to take this argument; and where do you want to inspire the public to join you? Again, thsi will take some time. This isn’t about you. This is about your argument. You are not the same as your argument. Relax.
August 8th, 2007 at 5:43 pmFurthermore, if you all want to get mad at someone, go find a mirror. That’s right. You want change? The Democrats did not get enough of a majority to overcome an obstructionist president and an obstructionist minority. They are intentionally blocking all major legislation purely to make you, the voter, angry at the Democratic party for not getting all their promises done. In that regard, when you get angry at the Democratic party, you are dangling from the Bush Administration’s strings and doing exactly what they want you to do. This isn’t conspiracy, this is straight up aggressive self-serving politics being played by the Bush Administration and the GOP and you, the angry, “betrayed” voters are nothing more than puppets.
August 8th, 2007 at 5:44 pmAnon is arguing that it’s illegal, and not looking at the big picture….. Much of what this administration has been illegal…… By the Courts, Congress, and the American people not doing anything about it has LAGITIMISED it and has in effect made it legal.
Because when the next president comes in, they cannot do anything to that president for doing the same thing……. PRESIDENCE has been set!!!! If they don’t stop it now, it cannot be stopped…..
Okay… now I understand what you are referring to. I didn’t read through all of Anon’s lengthy postings. Yes, I do agree with the above statement. It’s also an arguement for impeachment of Bush and Cheney and Gonzoles and maybe even some members of SCOTUS. It would be hard to impeach further presidents for even lesser crimes than the ones committed by Busholini because of precidence.
August 8th, 2007 at 5:52 pmI must respecfully disagree with the following assertion: ““I have served this country and have a stronger bond for what the Constitution means as I served to defend it.
Your status is a separte issue than your argument.
If you want to bring up your status, that is intersting, but doesn’t support your view.
If you want to separte your argument from yourself and your status, that is your choice. Please don’t ask others to believe your words becuse of your status; your argument — not your status — is the issue.
YOu can’t use your status as verbal armor rto what appears to be a defective argument. IT doesn’t mean you’re stupid, or that you’re a bad person; it means ony that the way you’ve crafted the bridge from your assertion to your conclusion isn’t steady.
That’s not a problem with you; its a problem with your argument. However, if you would like people to stand on your bridge, despite it being weak, then that is a secondary issue. My caution is: Do not be blind and follow someone who has a weak argument beacuse of their status. whther they are the President or anyone in teh Miltary — illegal orders are not a defense.
Nuremburg did adjudicate war crimes against civilian legal counsel, officres of the court, judges, and civilian policy advisors. FISA Acts are lawful when they are consitent with the laws of the land; but when illegal violations of the 4th Amendmetn are used to [a] engage in illegal abuse, by way of using illegally captured information for war crimes or prisoner abguse; or [b] justify prisoner abuse and rendition because the President “said so”, that is not a elgally stable argument.
AGain, whether you are or are not of a particular status or background is meaningless. We can only rely on your rgument on the TP scren/page. Your argument, and your bridge are questionable.
However, if you would like to argue, because of your status, that we should not question the argument, then I must politely decline to approach your bridge; and warn others. I’m not going to follow you. Ever.
I’m wth the Constitution. I’m not sure where your bridge and argument hope to lead anyone; or what problem you’re trying to solve. Bluntly, based on your responses above, I cannot trust you to develop a plan, understand a problem, our outline a coherent vision. You may be able to do it. But you’re not being clear.
Your problem, appears in my view, is you don’t know what you’re attempting to do: WHer do you want to take this argument; and where do you want to inspire the public to join you? Again, thsi will take some time. This isn’t about you. This is about your argument. You are not the same as your argument. Relax.”
“Enough of a majority” is meaaningless on teh following issues:
1. Conference COmmittees
If the House and senate DNC Chairs agree to common language before releasing their bill, then there is no need for a Conference COmmittttee.
2. AMendments
The GOP can be forced to pass Amendments.
3. Budgets
The DNC can zero-out budgets n committee and force the GOP to pass Amendments.
If the President and GOP want to filibuster or veto a bill, that is fine; but they still get no money.
Again, there is another way to look at this: The DNC is not stuck; it can use leverage; and it can attach to bills funds. If the President rejects those bills, he gets nothing. The DNC is not the victim or stuck here; they appear to be stuck in a pardaigm of illusion the gOP created.
Again, conference committees — when teh bills match in teh House and Senate befofe the vote — are not needed; teh DNC can say after “X”-date that they will not support funding for Y-program. The DNC refuses to do that.
Again, gettin abck to the FISA Act update: IF this was a “really important thing” to pass, teh DNC cannot explain why it did not attach this bill to funding cuts; or something else.
Again, the President has not cooperated with fact finding; rather than use that failure to cooperate as leverage, the DNC refused to say, “Until you give us teh ifnrmation, you get no money.”
THe DNC should have said, “We will not allowe the warrant requirement to be lawfully circumvented; and the fISA Court will review this.” They didn’t do that. Overall, I no longer buy the DNC whining. They have options, and refuse to assert them; even with the GOP in teh senate, there are ways to make them irrelevant; or use their obstyrution against them. The DNC refuses to do this. Not something the public should be impressed with.
Again, this doens’t mean thaqt the GOP and PResident are right. It means the dNC is not useing all lwaful otions; the basis for the 5 USC 3331 indictments against Members of Congress.
- – - – -
Gneeral message, not to anyone in specific
Again, if some would like to assert others are “idiots,” then why is an “idiot” able to figure out how to make the SAenate Conference committee — and the GOP “Threat of a refusal to agree to have one — something that an “idiot” can make an irrelvant, non-problem? You explain that. You know you’re not dealing with an idiot. You have no idea what you’re doing other than defeating your arguments. Stop makign the WH Case. Let’s get this into court; and get the President, DoJ Staff, EOp-OVP, and Members of Congress on the defense stands.
Time to prosecute these issues. This non-sense has gone on too long. The DNC members and GOP Members are free to stay where they are; or resign; or give up their party affiliation. They have options. They choose to stick with what has failed, is illegal, and contrary to their oath. They have a serious problem on their hands. And the Grand Jury may indict them for oath of office violations.
August 8th, 2007 at 5:55 pm“Comment by Anon — August 8, 2007 @ 5:43 pm”
I notice that YOU simply selectively pick and chose what you want to argue!!!!
Though you are an articulate person, you are not smart!!!!
Your argument is “THEORY”, and we are NOT talking “THEORY”!!!!
Does Torcher go against the Constitution?
Does Renditions go against the Constitution?
Does holding an American in jail for over 4 years without access to an attorney go against the Constitution?
I can go on and on….. The point is not that it violates the Constitution!!!! Again!!!!! WE ALL KNOW THAT IT DOES!!!!!
But when Congress, the courts, and the American people do nothing about that then those RIGHTS are GONE FOREVER!!!!
So if they are then GONE, it is IMPOSSIBE to get them back!!!!!
Just because the Constitution says so, does not make it so!!!! It has to be UPHELD!!!! If it is not upheld, the the Constitution means nothing and that RIGHT is lost forever (GONE)…..
Your thinking in an ABSOLUTE, BLACK AND WHITE and life, law, politics are NOT like that……
I noticed that YOU did not address my post about YOU being a TRAITOR!!!
Since you put such high standards on ONE Congressman, you should be held to the same standards since by the CONSTITUTION you are the one with the power. So since YOU have the power, is it not YOU who are the one responsible because YOU have done NOTHING but claim “THEORY” on this site?
August 8th, 2007 at 5:56 pmThis isn’t conspiracy, this is straight up aggressive self-serving politics being played by the Bush Administration and the GOP and you, the angry, “betrayed†voters are nothing more than puppets.
Comment by zull — August 8, 2007 @
I’ll go along with that. Getting angry with all the Democrats is exactly what traitor Rove wants to happen. The Republicans are obstructionists and they need to be labeled as such in 2008.
August 8th, 2007 at 5:59 pmThe law still exists: “American people not doing anything about it has LAGITIMISED it and has in effect made it legal.”
No, this is not correct: Inaction on the law enforcemetn is not precedent. Illegal activity is not precedent for “legalizign” more illegal activity. That is contrary to the notion of “legitimacy” — deference to written law.
August 8th, 2007 at 5:59 pmRemoveBush –
Yes, let’s remove Bush and several other traitors to our Constitution from office. I think Anon has done his job. He probably got paid to hijack this thread and he did quite well. We won’t forget who betrayed the Constitution and our freedoms in 2008 and 2010. Their names and their votes are all on record.
August 8th, 2007 at 6:03 pm“I must respecfully disagree with the following assertion: ““I have served this country and have a stronger bond for what the Constitution means as I served to defend it.
Your status is a separte issue than your argument.”
Absolutely NOT!!!
You were the one making the following comments:
“If you woul dlike to believe — given an illegal act of Congress — that that Act must be followed, go ahead. You’re following illegal acts. There is no legal defense for you. It is clearly illegal.
Comment by Anon — August 8, 2007 @ 2:12 pm”
“Choose whehter you want to be an enemy of the Constitution; or with the Constitution.”
“Either you defend this constitution; or you are an enemy. Choose.”
“I am with this existing Constitution. If you are against me, then you are asserting you are an enemy of the Constitution.
Live with those consequenes. It remains to be seen whether that choice is one that is adjudicated.”
“Choose wisely.”
My service DOES play into this! I have OFFERED MY LIFE for this country by serving to protect the CONSTITUTION……
Then YOU stand there and ACCUSE me of being a ENEMY!!!!!
My service plays in very well you little pissant!!!!! If you were 18, I would back hand you so hard that you would pass back through time to your conception.
August 8th, 2007 at 6:03 pmThis is non-sense: “Precedent” does nto mean that illegal activity is precedent. “They cannot do anything for doing teh same thing” — non-sense! Congress can take action or not take action. The issue is whetyher they have or haven’t asserted their oath.
Ths is not a valid assertion: “Because when the next president comes in, they cannot do anything to that president for doing the same thing……. PRESIDENCE has been set!!!! If they don’t stop it now, it cannot be stopped…..”
Refusign to stop now what is illegal doesn’t mean future Presidents can violate the law. That is not a valid argument. Saying “it cannot be stopped” is illusory. Precedence isn ot a precedent for anarchy and lawlessness. What some fail to ralize is that Congressional ianction on impeachment does not bind all Americans to inaction. THe President can still be prosecuted outside imepachment; Congressional decisions to not assert their oath does nto bind all people to not enforce the law. Rather, look at the NSA litigation by the States. Congress isn’t doing this, but the states are. Again, to argue there is a “precedent” for lawulessness; or that the US government — because it refuses to enforce teh law — binds us all to do ntohing, is non-sense. Explain the State AGs who are doing what congress refuses on the NSA illegal activity. That action has not been stopped.
Federal action does nto require defer4nce what their inaction allows illegal activity. It may have some deference, but it cannto compel assent when the FEdearl Government refsues to do what it should. Justice demands enforcement of the law, not a common agreement to take a signal from the lazy Congress to do nothing at all levels.
August 8th, 2007 at 6:05 pm“No, this is not correct: Inaction on the law enforcemetn is not precedent. Illegal activity is not precedent for “legalizign†more illegal activity. That is contrary to the notion of “legitimacy†— deference to written law.
Comment by Anon — August 8, 2007 @ 5:59 pm”
Then I suggest you start going around the country and start demanding that all those laws that are being BROKEN are upheld, and see just how far you get!!!
When you turn 18, come back and visit. You CLEARLY do not have any experience to udnerstand how that works……
People are breaking laws EVERYDAY, that are not enforced!!!! Because they are not enforced and have not been enforced for 20 or more years means that they cannot be UPHELD!!!!
Since so many crimes have been committed without enforcement there is no way to NOW start upholding the law!!!!!! Even if they tried to enforce the law, the courts woudl have no choice but to throw it out!!!
MAN ARE YOU THICK HEADED!
August 8th, 2007 at 6:08 pm“Comment by Anon — August 8, 2007 @ 6:05 pm”
I’m done!!!!
When you hit puberty, come back and we’ll pick back up on this……
By then, you might actually see how life works and realize that what you are saying is great for “THEORY” but does not work in REAL WORLD situations…….
You still have not gotten off that “THEORY” claim!!!!
“Ths is not a valid assertion: “Because when the next president comes in, they cannot do anything to that president for doing the same thing……. PRESIDENCE has been set!!!! If they don’t stop it now, it cannot be stopped…..—
Right!!!! So is that why the Supreme Court has upheld “Executive Priviledge” even though there is no such thing in the CONSTITUTION??????
How can something someone made up be legal????? It is because of PRESIDENCE!!!!!
So if Bush gets out of office and nothing is done about the crimes, then the next president CAN claim that it is IN FACT LEGAL because nothing was done! JUST LIKE “EXECUTIVE PRIVILEDGE”, which is not in the CONSTITUTION or in ANY law but is now CONSIDERED LAW!
August 8th, 2007 at 6:16 pmRemoveBush — August 8, 2007
Privilege isn’t one for the President to assert and all to blindly obey but for the Court to not recognize. If. The. Court. Chooses. To. Ignore it.
Privilege has to be invoked; when not properly invoked, it is not valid. And the Court is not required to recognize it. Precedent is not precedence. It can change: Look at Bush’s commutation of Libby; that defied precedence.
August 8th, 2007 at 6:34 pmYou don’t believe this: “So if Bush gets out of office and nothing is done about the crimes, then the next president CAN claim that it is IN FACT LEGAL because nothing was done!”
War crimes are not legal; and Congress and the President have no power to assert that Genocide and illegal warfare are precedence.
Your argument fails.
August 8th, 2007 at 6:37 pmNotice the distraction: From the issue of FISA to other issues: Then I suggest you start going around the country and start demanding that all those laws that are being BROKEN are upheld, and see just how far you get!!!
Irrelevant point.
August 8th, 2007 at 6:38 pmRemoveBush — August 8, 2007
Your argument isn’t valid. This doesn’t follow or related to the FISA issue today: “How can something someone made up be legal????? It is because of PRESIDENCE!!!!!”
You’re answering your own questions with irrevant answers.
The issue is: P R C E D E N C E.
August 8th, 2007 at 6:41 pm“People are breaking laws EVERYDAY, that are not enforced!!!! Because they are not enforced and have not been enforced for 20 or more years means that they cannot be UPHELD!!!!”
YOu fail to link this assertion to the Constitution. Violating the Constittuion doesn’t become precedent for anything. It’s illegal.
August 8th, 2007 at 6:43 pmWhether you are right or wong is secondary: You’ve failed to link this assertion to any discussion related to the FISA issues above; or to the Congressman; or the Constitution.
FISA violations are measured by teh law which existed then; Congress may pass a new law, but that doesn’t change the governing law when the FISA violations first occurred. it’s incorrect to say that violating the warrant requirement creates a precedence to allow other violations. That’s contrary to the oath and 42 USC 1983 training.
“Since so many crimes have been committed without enforcement there is no way to NOW start upholding the law!!!!!! Even if they tried to enforce the law, the courts woudl have no choice but to throw it out!!!”
You have no basis to say that the court would have “no choice” but to throw it out. That is absurd. You’re asserting on a general basis a rule that says the courts may not exericse judicial power on a narrow issue of Constittuional law; FISA violations; or oath of office violations. I don’t believe you have any case law to support your assertion. You’re making things up. I think you want to be convinced that things are hopeless. Rest assured, things are not hopless: The Constittuion is fully in tact; and illegal activity does not become precedence to new enforce the Constittuion’s warrant requirement. NSA officers now this. They could be linked with war crimes over these illegal issues: Improer use of unlwaflly captured infromation for use during unlwaful prisoer abuse. That’s a war crime, if convicted. Is that what you would like to see happen?
August 8th, 2007 at 6:48 pmLegal counsel associated with he WH on these FISAA violations should have known this. They apear to be in serious trouble. Along with Members of Congress who hav enown about this illegal activity, but not timely asserted their oath. Whining about what ’should’ have happened, but no action to resign could be viewed as a basis for an upwards adjustment.
August 8th, 2007 at 6:51 pmSummary
1. Those pretending the Constitution is “gone” are relying on sophistry. The Constitution is alive. It remains in tact. The violations are not precedent; but evidence.
2. Those making weak arguments do not inspire confidence or support. Beware. Follow them at your own risk.
3. It’s not a credible argument — by way of giving one weight or credit — to assert because one is a veteran that that view should be given attention over others. Those who refuse to accept the Constitution is still around appear to be delusional.
4. You’re either witht he Constitution; or you’re not. The Constittuion has not gone away.
5. Presidential signing statements are not law; they are views. Those views may not be legal. The President’s language is not law; that belongs to the court to decide. Executive ORders which direct people to volate the warrant requirement are not lwaful.
6. Members of Congrss, when they ignore their oath, can be prosecuted. One line of evidence for the Grand Jury to review is wehther the Member of Congress used all laweful options; and whether they knew,, or should have konwn, thta the Act was illegal and contrary to the law.
7. Illegal activity isnot precedence; and Presidential assertions outside Court is not law. He can only sign or not sign an Act of Congress. The President has been delegated some rule making authority; but that power is one Congress retains through ARticle 1 Section 8; and can revoke.
8. The President has one power: Executive. To enforce teh law. When he does not defend the Constitution, and the congress violates the Constituion with an act, that Act cannot be enforced or followed.
9. THere are lawful options on the table to review this line of evidence. States may prosecute a Member of Congress. Federal Government inaction is not a mandate for all to ignore teh lwa. [Talk to Judge Vaugn Walker; states are not obliged to assent to Federal Office illegal acts; nor heed the Congress when the Congress directs illegal activity; or when congress refuses to enforce teh law.]
August 8th, 2007 at 7:02 pmThe next Democratic President will need this intelligence power…
…to find the TREASONOUS scum among the Blackwater contractors…
…who stole those hundreds of thousands of weapons (from Iraq)…
…in order to supply the rich elitist facists al Cracker private army…
…Lib/Progs…
…get armed…
…’cause they’re coming…
August 8th, 2007 at 7:49 pmWhile you listen and watch, remember that he is in front of a banner that says “Center for American Progress”. Sees a bit ironic, don’t you think?
August 8th, 2007 at 8:30 pmHow can JOE SESTAK say anything about standing up to George Bush when he’s got a George Bush haircut?
August 9th, 2007 at 5:59 pmNotice this TP comment — “The Washington Post acknowledged that its pre-Iraq failures resulted in part because it did not seek alternative sources of information.” — A lesson lost by this Congress: Continuing to fail to seek other views, just rubber stamping.
August 14th, 2007 at 5:29 pm