‘FISA: The Constitution needs your calls today.’
By on Oct 9th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
‘FISA: The Constitution needs your calls today.’
FireDogLake’s Christy Hardin Smith is rallying progressive activists to make their voice heard on the new FISA bill, the RESTORE Act. Smith applauds the compromise and says the Progressive Caucus deserves “a hearty thank you for fighting the good fight on this.” “Please make calls today to all of your elected representatives in the House and Senate and tell them this is important to you — and that it is important that they get this right.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Who cares about the Constitution?
It’s just a g*ddamned piece of paper.
Call me a silly American… but I do care.
October 9th, 2007 at 12:57 pmLet’s see what happens when Bush vetoes this bill. He hates compromise more than any politician I have seen. If he views this as a Democratic or Progressive victory, he will turn it into a defeat.
October 9th, 2007 at 1:12 pmThose who would sacrifice Liberty for a little security deserve neither.
October 9th, 2007 at 1:34 pm“… and that it is important that they get this right.â€
i damn near peed in my pants from laughing so hard…. get it right… OMFG!
October 9th, 2007 at 1:38 pm#1 – i agree, the republican terrorists are being defeated one by one they are dropping like diseased flies.
October 9th, 2007 at 1:39 pm“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier…just so long as I’m the dictator.” – George W. Bush, 12/18/00, during his first trip to Washington as president-elect
“A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there’s no question about it.” – George W. Bush, 7/26/01
“It’s not a dictatorship in Washington, but I tried to make it one in that instance.” – George W. Bush, 1/15/04, “[T]hat instance” being an executive order making faith-based groups eleigible for federal funds (say good-bye to Separation of Church and State)
While Bush and his supporters would dismiss these as “jokes”, I believe that they present a very telling insight into Bush’s way of thinking. Bush does not really believe in Democracy, for if he did, he would realize that a vast, vast majority of the country does not approve of the decisions he makes, and not just on the War in Iraq, Social Security privatization, or giving billionaires more tax cuts, or any number of other subjects. Bush feels that because he is the president (whether or not he was legitimately elected to that office), he is entitled to have things his way or no way at all. He does not compromise, for he feels that compromise is a sign of weakness. And he does not believe in winning support through the merits of your arguments, but prefers instead to use blackmail, strongarming tactics and lies to “win” his arguments, but clearly not facts.
Bush thinks that he ought to be allowed to do “whatever it takes” to “protect the American people”. Well, that’s not his job. His job is to “faithfully execute the office of president of the United States” and to “preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States”. And he is supposed to do this by following the law and the constitution, not doing “whatever it takes.” He really does want to be a dictator.
October 9th, 2007 at 1:44 pmThe FISA court, a secret star chamber, is, in itself, unConstitutional. Any legislation that cedes authority to FISA court (as this legislation would do), legitimizes it. The longer that it exists without its Constitutionality being challenged, the harder it becomes to get rid of it. Unfortunately, we’re coming up to FISA’s 30th birthday, and its creation was a bad response to criminal activities by the same group of people in power in our government today.
There really is no reason, none, to have a clandestine judicial institution operating in the shadows, out of the view and oversight of anybody, unless it is to hijack the American government and use it for the express wishes of an elite few (the Corporate class).
We need to address the root causes that are creating people who commit the kinds of crimes that the FISA Court was created to deal with. Once sunlight shines on what the FISA Court (and the Bush administration) keep secret, the American people can see how their money and military have been misused around the world: To make very few filthy rich and powerful, and millions of others sick, dead and enslaved.
There should be no compromising, which is what this bill is. The Patriot Act needs to be overturned, the FISA Court needs to be shut down, Congress needs to find the Bush administration in inherent contempt, and Democrats need to rediscover America by sticking to the instruments for democracy and individual rights that the founders left for us.
October 9th, 2007 at 1:51 pmI already called my Reps and told them that they need to get this right: DEFEAT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION!
Comment by Rory — October 9, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
Hey Jake you had a typo in your post. I just fixed it for you.
October 9th, 2007 at 2:08 pmFourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This bill doesn’t “Restore” this constitutional right of the American people. Compromising with evil only enables it. Mark my words…by the time this bill is combined with the Senate bill, it will be worse that we have now. This President and his minions will do WHATEVER they want. As you may remember, the McCain anti-torture amendment to the Defense bill passed by an overwhelming majority by the Senate in October 2005 and signed into law (after threats of veto) Dec. 30, 2005. That same date, Bush attached this signing statement to it: “The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of … protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.” And as you may further recall, the recently revealed “secret legal memos” regarding torture were also written AT THAT SAME TIME. And torture continues TO THIS DAY.
October 9th, 2007 at 2:23 pmBill Clinton used the same exact type of wording in his signing statements. You are simply upset because Bush uses them more often?
Comment by Rory — October 9, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
Demonstrate ONE TIME that Clinton used the phrase “Unitary Executive Branch” in any of his signing statements. In addition, please demonstrate his declarations that he intended NOT to follow the laws he had just signed. Links, please.
October 9th, 2007 at 2:59 pmBill Clinton used the same exact type of wording in his signing statements. You are simply upset because Bush uses them more often?
Comment by Rory — October 9, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
Feel free to show me evidence to the contrary, but I’m pretty sure that Clinton never referred to “the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch.”
The “Unitary Executive” Theory is false and does not apply to our form of government, no matter what Bush and his supporters say.
October 9th, 2007 at 3:00 pmComment by impeachcheneythenbush — October 9, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
You must type faster than me, because you sure think as fast. I’m glad I’m not the only one who noticed.
October 9th, 2007 at 3:01 pmComment by impeachcheneythenbush — October 9, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
You must type faster than me, because you sure think as fast. I’m glad I’m not the only one who noticed.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — October 9, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Well, as the old saying goes, “great minds think alike.” Typing speed: 75 WPM, after typing errors.
October 9th, 2007 at 3:51 pmOK, I didn’t find the words “Unitary Executive†but that does not go against my main point above that Bill Clinton issued signing statements to disregard portions of laws he considered unconstitutional. The practice was, in fact, codified by HIS Office of Legal Counsel in the 90’s.
Comment by Rory — October 9, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Setting aside, for the moment, that I do not believe this and would appreciate a link to some evidence (like where you found it), you have both proven our point and missed it, too. Clinton never claimed to be acting under a “Unitary Executive Theory”, and when his signing statements said that he would not obey those parts of the law that he thought unconstitutional, were any of those times because he claimed the law would interfere with his “inherent authority as Commander-in-Chief” (an excuse that Bush gives for everything, even things unrelated to the military)?
Clinton never argued that he shouldn’t have to obey a law because his own interpretation of the law and of the constitution told him he didn’t have to if he didn’t want to, but Bush did exactly that.
October 9th, 2007 at 3:53 pmWell, as the old saying goes, “great minds think alike.†Typing speed: 75 WPM, after typing errors.
Comment by impeachcheneythenbush — October 9, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
Well, if you’re going to leave the typing errors in, of course you’ll beat me! :)
October 9th, 2007 at 3:54 pmComment by Rory — October 9, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Rory, first of all you did not provide a link that indicated that Clinton’s signing statements declared the non-intention to follow the law that had been passed and that HE signed into law. Secondly, a link discussing the “unitary budget” has absolutely NOTHING to do with the unitary executive theory. Unless, of course, you consider adjectives of a noun the totality of the meaning of such noun. If that is the case, perhaps you will show me the applicant parallel with red “shirt” and red “car.”
October 9th, 2007 at 4:00 pmPeople For the American Way also has a petition going here:
October 10th, 2007 at 12:37 pmHelp Congress Grow a Spine and Protect the Constitution