Slashdot Mirror
Subpoenas Issued Over NSA Warrantless Wiretapping
Spamicles writes "The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to subpoena documents from the Bush Administration related to the government's admitted eavesdropping on Americans' overseas emails and phone calls without getting court approval. In a 13-3 vote, the Committee decided to authorize its chairman to issue subpoenas for documents related to the NSA warrantless surveillance program. Nearly any request is going to be met with tough resistance from the White House, and the confrontation over the documents 'could set the stage for a constitutional showdown over the separation of powers.'"
...got them!
No, no sig. Really.
ThePromenader
One by one they are taking away the tools that President Bush needs to fight terrorisim at home and abroad. When we are attacked again, we will know who to blame.
I bet the NSA knew these subpoenas were going to show up since they're probably already tapping the Senate Judiciary Committee's phones too. ;-)
It's certainly a request they can no longer ignore as much - but ultimately, what are the consequences if they don't comply? Will the president or any of his men be lead away in handcuffs, or will we have another 6 months of someone saying they have to do something, then they REALLY have to do something.
When Bush's team mentioned bringing 'ingegrity' back to the White House, they meant the kind of integrity that doesn't waver from their beliefs... at all costs, everyone else be damned. And they meant it.
Ryan Fenton
It doesn't mean anything that these documents have been subpoenaed. When the White House refuses to release them, which they will most definitely do, will this Congress have the intestinal fortitude to fight back? Or will they pass more "non-binding" resolutions and whine about it while doing nothing? Judging from the past, I'm going to fully expect them to continue to let the constitution crumble and civil liberties die. I think that the big picture here is that we, as the common people of this country, no longer have anyone fighting for us, whether democrat, republican, third party, or otherwise.
"We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
Unfortunately, impeachment starts with the *House* Judiciary Committee... but at least this might get them moving.
What the hell ever happened to the government serving its people? Wasn't that what this country was founded on? Isn't that the whole idea of a democracy? The US government has become this monster that seems to fight its people as hard as it can. It honestly saddens me to take a step back and say "Is this what America has really become?". We've become 18th century England. Everything our forefathers fought to establish for this country has been thrown away. Our government now is nothing more than a corporate powerhouse who's members use it as a way to become personally more powerful. Can they honestly believe illegally wiretapping their own people serves the peoples best interests and freedom? Maybe they need to visit a 5th grade Social Studies class because I really think they've lost their way.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
the subpoenas haven't been issued yet. they just authorized that the chair issue them. There will likely be negotiations with the executive department.
Just saying.
despite the idea often held by some cultures that corruption proceeds from the top down, it is rather the other way around. The people themselves are inherently corrupt and weak. They don't want to take responsibility for themselves, they don't want to take the blame for anything that goes wrong in their lives, don't want to acknowledge their fallibility. Yet deep down, they would have to be positively not human to not know and accept all of the above, but it terrifies them. So they bide their time keeping busy until something comes along to absolve them of all that and make them feel better.
While in past times these were some other ethnic group, some other nation, the devil, etc. we have today the modern political system. Someone else has wronged you, someone else got what should have been yours, you and yours have been held back by they and theirs. All these things are open to interpretation convenient to the subject audience to which the political/avaricious/power-hungry/self-deluded are preaching. They dress up with fun-house mirror magnifications of real issues mixed with non-sequitr reasoning and provide them to the people with the dual benefits to the seller of giving the audience the needed scapegoat du jour to avoid dealing with their fallibility and culpability, as well as providing an ultimately open-ended and thus never reachable hopeful land of opportunity to permanently right all of these probably non-existent wrongs against them.
We the people let this kind of thing happen because we the people buy into this kind of thing. They aren't selling us anything we didn't buy from them. If we didn't buy it, they'd have sold us something else, probably equally odious in the end whether or not it was as obvious as this or not.
While our collective modern intellectual and psychological exhaustion with trying to make sense of our truly warped world and the people who made it and the horrors of what that says about us may not always work well and probably will not, we can at least thankfully point to that and say it is thanks to this we have the modern sense of cynicism that gives us a chance to grab the reigns solidly, and pull back from disaster. Our collective history shows we won't, but perhaps a self-derived deceptive and deluded false hope is better than one sold to us by someone else. At least when it all falls apart, we can blame it on a conspiracy of one, headed by the person staring back at us in the mirror.
We have met the enemy, and probably wondered if we needed a shave when we looked at them.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Even the Republicans are getting tired of the President's contempt for their branch of government.
Everyone knows by now that the Bush administration loses all important documents, and damned if anyone in the administration can remember any event that's occurred at any point since W took office. I'd bet we're in for similar, but consistent, excuses again.
Remember the anthrax mailings?
Did those count as an attack?
What was done? Who was caught?
So in America, A president ordering others to repeatedly violate your constitution and violate the rights of the people you are not punished but if you get a blow job from an ugly fat girl you get impeachment hearings. My god you guys have issues with sex.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
And the phrase "President Pelosi" is why we would see Cheney step down and Bush appoint a clean VP - a la Nixon, Agnew, and Ford.
... as for the Subject, did I really type that? I must be more tired than I'd thought...
In any event, I am far more worried about the precedent than I am about the damage one crazy old man can do in the time remaining after the impeachment process. The President has knowingly used the machinery of government against American citizens in direct defiance of law. If that is allowed to stand, we are not a nation of laws.
It looked like parody to me.
If it was supposed to be "real debate" and you interpret it as such then that's a rather damning indication on the level of debate in American politics.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
The subpoenas were not issued; the Senate Judiciary Committee merely voted to authorize them. Nothing "happens" until they are actually issued, which may or may not happen in a timely manner, or at all. Consider the matter of the firing of the those US Attorneys - subpoenas were authorized months ago, but only actually issued a few weeks ago.
VP Dick Cheney believes his office isn't an executive branch office!
maybe he needs to pick up a book.
He thinks he is above the law and doesn't have to disclose what classified materials his office has.
He's defied the presidential order for over 6 years now.
Cheney should be impeached immediately. Any congressman who doesn't think so is a coward and a fraud.
They're using their grammar skills there.
What if the law was unjust? I mean what if the law was black have to ride in the back of the bus and can never own property? Would you be just as made for the president violating a law?
Now, the president seems to think it has a constitutional obligation and the authority to violate those laws in much the same way he would be able to violate a law that said redheaded jews must have abortions or congress could pass a law with 25 votes and the president doesn't need to sign it anymore.
You see, the reason you have the problem is because you don't agree with the president's assertion. Well, that or you don't even know it. You would be surprised at how many people bash bush and don't even know his first name let along his claimed justifications for whatever actions. But seriously, how much of this disdain is pure party politics instead actually rebellion of the facts. And do you know the facts surrounding this case?
They must breed idiots like you. Look, this is NOT being used to fight terrorism. Look carefully at this program. It is NOT the NSA who is pushing it. The NSA has the equipment and is doing what Bush and the DOJ say to do. The real issue here is not that NSA is looking calls on incoming/outgoing from the USA. The real issues is that we are doing it on calls within the USA and it is being ordered by the FBI. The NSA is NOT happy doing this. They have been professionals for decades and have always kept a clean separation between knowledge of citizens and politics. The PATRIOT act is what gave all the powers to the DOJ. Don't believe me? Look carefully at all the interesting busts that have occured since PATRIOT act. In particular, congresman jefferson. In addition, look at how the DOJ wins a number of cases that it never has. Why? because is now has insider info. Want to know why Republicans did SO damn good against the dems in 2004? As the saying goes, KNOWLEDGE is power. And W, Cheney, and Rove KNOW how to get it and use it. Terrorist? My ass. This has NOTHING to do with terrorism. YOur calling it such is akin to when the anthrax occured and the republicans claimed it was Al Qaeda right from the git-go. Yet, if you look at a number of facts with it, it was none in the first 2 days that it was not al qaeda.
All I can say, is get an education and grow a set. I am tired of people like you who live in fear and blame everybody.
NSA: What NSA. There is no such office or department.
If there were, it's actions would be of the highest national security secret. Highly sensitive. Even admitting there were such a department would subject New York or Washington to a dirty bomb attack. So there is no such agency. Even if there were such an agency, I mean, after all, it's only charged with tracking terrorist. No true citizen worthy of the protections of the constitution is involved. After all, only CITIZENS are afforded the rights granted by the state. And only those we designate are citizens. We can't have just any old Tom, Dick, Harry, Iven, Shamus, Pedro, or Jamal covered by the same rights as some one that "belongs" here is granted. If you aren't white, Anglo-saxson, prodistant, you aren't shit, right? Why the hell do you expect to enjoy "one justice for all"?
You know what? I think America is strong enough to grant the same rights to evey person that is under our control the same rights of a citizen, except the right to vote and hold office. The prisoners at Gitmo and other sites not known should be affored the same rights and protections as someone whose grandparents were born here.
We are all illegal immigrants, unless we have native american blood. Just ask Chief Ten Bears. Oh, wait, we killed him.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
I'd like to congratulate you on your remarkably appropriate screen name.
They can subpoena anybody they want. Bush & Co. have already decided they answer to no one. Lookit what's going on this week with Cheney's refusal to comply with a long-standing executive order regarding submission of materials to NARA... I think somewhere in the White House someone went down to the mall and got one of those rubber stamps made at Things Remembered, marked "GO POUND SALT." They've worn out several inkpads already, using it.
---------------------------------------
Rotate the pod, please, HAL....
And actually, Monica wasn't all that bad. I've dated worse.
---------------------------------------
Rotate the pod, please, HAL....
Look for the press party beginning as soon as the first "illegal combatant" reaches the US. The will be given as much press time as possible to spew their messages of unfair treatment, torture, oppression and hate.
These people aren't criminals, they are warriors. If we gave a trial to every North Korean soldier that was captured, we'd still be having trials. The Korean War was another illegal war, just as illegal as what is going on today. Civilans were caught in the middle and died just the same as today. Why aren't we having hearings about what went on in the Korean War? Or are the Asian people there somehow less than the people in the Middle East?
There was one FBI agent that knew what was coming, however political pressure and his superiors thought he was crazy. He died two weeks before September 11th. I linked to a documentary about his career in the FBI, its about 80 minutes long but I believe it was worth my time.
John O'Neil - The Man Who Knew
who has lied under oath.
"YOU GOT SERVED!"
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Even Federally granted phone intercepts can be given on the lightest grounds. I have witnessed first hand what damage to lives and families telephone intercepts can do. I can only imagine what this extreme abuse of power may have these drunkards doing.
This should make great election season soap opera and accomplish exactly nothing. Presidential pardons await. But the "opposition" can say they "did something" to the folks back home. Yeah they did do something to the folks back home, but they can't say what in front of women and children. Enjoy the show, folks. Looks like '08 is just another boat race. Here's hoping for another chance in 2012.
What?
Are we talking about the president failing to *enforce* such a law, or *violating* such a law? If the latter, I would certainly not be mad. I would cheer - but I would still say they should be jailed for it. They should not be impeached, however, as it is not a crime of the office, but one any of us could commit with the same effect.
Refusal to enforce a law, it should be clear, is a different matter entirely - roughly equivalent to the pardon. If we wish to digress into when it is and isn't appropriate and legal, this is fine, but is not relevant to the matter at hand. It is something which I haven't come to a clear conclusion on myself.
Now, the president seems to think it has a constitutional obligation and the authority to violate those laws in much the same way he would be able to violate a law that said redheaded jews must have abortions or congress could pass a law with 25 votes and the president doesn't need to sign it anymore.
And it is precisely this interpretation that we need to refute. The President does not have a free hand simply because he shouts "DEFENSE!", which is fundamentally the argument being made by the administration. To allow this is to live in a dictatorship, and it must be rejected in the strongest terms. Note that this *is* a political disagreement, and if that is all then removal from office is appropriate but subsequent charges should not be pressed. If abuses are found, of course, then he should be held responsible for them.
Well, that or you don't even know it. You would be surprised at how many people bash bush and don't even know his first name let along his claimed justifications for whatever actions. But seriously, how much of this disdain is pure party politics instead actually rebellion of the facts. And do you know the facts surrounding this case?
Your post generally raises an issue which needed to be addressed - which I hope I have done satisfactorily. This type of ad hominem attack is unnecessary. I recognize that this is Slashdot, but let's try and elevate the level of discourse so far as we can, shall we?
To take your question at face value, yes, I am quite aware of the facts surrounding the matter, as I've been following it closely from the outset, including watching the relevant testimony - many, many hours of it, along with reading the relevant court cases and bits of statute. All of this is, of course, unimportant - I am not making an argument from authority; my conclusions, I believe, are well founded, and I intend to argue them appropriately. If you've questions or problems with my argument, do raise them.
Maybe some of the people who thought it was meant serious are from the USA? It's actually interesting that there seems to be such a wide spread of interpretation here :-)
I guess what I mean is: if you thought THAT was serious, what kind of society do you inhabit??
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
D'oh.. totally forgot.. what was the reason given by the three opposing members of the senate judiciary committee to vote against those subpoenas? Why was it not a unanimous 16-0 vote, I mean.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
The best defense is a good offense.
No matter what you tell yourself we can't really defend against terrorist attacks. And even though they seem to favor explosives they don't always use them. I myself can come up with several ways to kill mass quantities of people without explosives.
Freedoms disappear during times of strife. That is a fact. People used to accept this. Don't seem to anymore. Not sure if that's a good or bad thing.
Also, both sides have erred on the Fight Against Terrorism. To blame just one might be easier, but it is hardly helpful. The FBI managed to slip by the radar when I believe that they are the ones to blame primarily for the 9/11 attacks specifically. Congress is also to blame. While the president can authorize attacks or assassinations the presidents office after Nixon was little more than a figurehead. Congress should have been more zealous when it came to possible threats to our security. I have always believed that the federal government should be weak on domestic issues. That is why there are state governments.
you forgot the '-- Benjamin Franklin' part.
The general public will never catch on to that.
They are too busy watching non-news on TV, gabbing
on the cell phone, and in general, just cruising
on with their life, oblivious to what is happening
all around them.
The general public is complicit by not paying attention.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
I'm sorry, my numbers above were a little off. Then number of presidential signing statements by Clinton and Reagan together come to 150 not 50 as I wrote.
The current Pres Bush had used the signing statement 800 times as of last Feb and interestingly, his pappy used it 232 times. In fact ALL of the presidents before GW Bush used signing statements only 600 times.
The interesting thing about this extraordinary measure is that usually these signing statements are used when the Congress passes a law that the President finds so unconstitutional that he feels he must weigh in. Most Presidents just go ahead and veto the bill instead. But remember, the first six years of the Bush Admin, when he used the signing statement 33 percent more than all the previous presidents combined, he had a Republican Congress.
So what was up? It was all about enhancing the power of the "Unitary" Executive. Think for a moment about one of the most inadequate and incompetent presidents in history grabbing such power for himself.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Anti-Bush posts modded down? Posting something inane attacking Bush/Cheney/Republicans, etc is the surest way to an insightful in Slashdot.
Right or wrong, he should at least get the same innocent until proved guilty like the rest of the country is supposed to have. And my post was about his claims having some merit. Certainly you would agree that if congress passed a law saying only it could select the president's advisers or the next supreme court judges, that law wouldn't be enforceable. Why? because the constitution says it is the president's job not congress's. So, what I am saying is, why is it any differen't on this one issue? I believe I tested the merits of your thought and your proved them to be real. Now for the merit's of your position, Do you really think a law should be enforced just because it is a law, when the constitution forbids it? I think the 14th amendment stops the government from making laws that single blacks out from other citizens specifically. Do you think it is wise to jail the president or anyone else for letting them sit in the front of the buss? Cause I don't see how with the existing constitution (leaving touchy feely out of this) that a law like that could be upheld. And for this reason, I am willing to give the president the benifit of doubt until the US Supreme court says otherwise.
Just a quick note Clinton allowed 9/11 to happen Bush had 8 months to react to an already terrorist plan to attack the US, and that my people isn't enough time to counter it. The terrorists were already in their final stages of the attack, and blaming Bush is being ignorant.
That is because you are drawing the wrong line. In the relationship between Congress and the President, there is little difference between the two. In the relationship between the government and the people, the one constrains the government where the other prevents the government from constraining itself. A lot in the constitution is somewhat open to interpretation. I feel safe in assuming that when it was drafted, its authors weren't thinking that the problem of previous governments had been insufficient power in the hands of the government.
No, it is perfectly relevant. although the scenario was switched to add sort of a straw man to the argument. I really wanted to see if you would buckle under pressure. It seems that why only half doing so, you have separated that half from keeping in the same position on the situation. I think this is good but not necessarily correct. And this distinguishes you from all of the people who say fry bush because they hate him and this is just another excuse to fester that hate.
Well, um, thank you.
You must be confused, that wasn't an attack, that was leading with an explanation into the president's position on why he did it.
It was fairly heavily ad hominem. There were certainly some valid points buried in there, which I thought I'd addressed.
And again that position is that in certain circumstances, certain obligations and powers come to the president by the constitution which is the highest law in the land and any law stopping this from happening under these specific conditions cannot be enforced. So the president is claiming the very same thing that give congress power also stops that power from interfering with his duties under certain circumstances. He also feels those circumstances were meet on this.
And the only way in which our government maintains any protection to our liberties is if "the President feels" is insufficient grounds to strip from us our Constitutionally protected rights.
Right or wrong, he should at least get the same innocent until proved guilty like the rest of the country is supposed to have.
This is false. We are not talking about whether the president goes to prison. We are talking about whether he keeps his job. I have no necessary presumption of innocence in my employment. That said, I don't at all think it an unreasonable thing to grant. Of course, from my reading of it, what he has openly admitted to is in direct violation of the law, and further testimony under oath by several members of his cabinet confirms that these actions were taken. You don't establish, before going to trial, that the law is Constitutional. In criminal proceedings, this is achieved on appeal. In this case, it would have to come as a part of the Impeachment process, but it certainly isn't something that needs to be established before the issue is pursued - it is only through such deliberation that we will come to a conclusion.
And my post was about his claims having some merit.
In that there is something of an argument to be made, I agree. I don't agree that this argument actually has merit.
Certainly you would agree that if congress passed a law saying only it could select the president's advisers or the next supreme court judges, that law wouldn't be enforceable. Why? because the constitution says it is the president's job not congress's. So, what I am saying is, why is it any different on this one issue?
It is different on this issue because the law in question was made to address an ambiguity in the Constitution. The Constitution does not enumerate the powers of the president in his role as Commander In Chief, we are left to infer them from the rest of the text, and doubtless refine our interpretation from experience. The Fourth Amendment to the
Seriously folks, what ever happens, the system of US governance will continue. The 2nd branch of government is investigating the 1st branch. If they can't agree on a resolution, the 3rd branch of government has the option to step in and decide the matter.
It actually all seems pretty silly the histrionics that occur on this site. Although to be fair, there doesn't seem to be a better place to discuss things. The idea that emails and phone calls are property seems to be a given. The idea that their being duplicated or recorded is an unreasonable search or seizure, that I'm not so sure about. Where are all the file sharers on this issue? Duplication of something made in or by a studio is not theft, but if you copy my email that's an illegal seizure?
The remedy for illegal search and seizure is dismissal of those things garnered by the same in a court of law. That is, they can't be used against you to prosecute a crime. However, the intention of this program is not to punish or catch offenders, it is simply to stop the crime from occuring.
Even in cases of real property, search and seizure at the borders has always been a recognized right of the government. Until the 3rd branch changes that, this doesn't appear to be anything other then a bunch of people complaining about rights they really never had in the first place.
"..........as long as he ... well, does nothing, really."
If he's doing/done "nothing, really", then what's the problem?
I think you are taking it further then the situation requires it. The president claiming he had powers from the constitution under certain circumstances to do something congress has passed a law that restricted this ability is directly a conflict between congress and the president. Congress could pass a law tomorrow saying th president doesn't need a warrant from the FISA court to do the same things as long as he reported it like he was doing and it would still stand constitutional muster. So this is specifically about congress placing restriction on the president.
Well, I am sorry it came out as an attack. That wasn't the intent. Maybe I was just being too bold careless. And yes, you did address then nicely.
Well, I wish this would go to the courts. The problem is, you have to feel to have a right that is protected by the constitution in order to disregard a law, then they prosecute you for this violation and you argue your side in court. Seeing how the justice department was involved in making the decisions to violate this, they seem to believe the right was there too and won't prosecute. Now, congress will move in and it might goto the courts, but at this stage, the courts will likely side with the president anyways. And I think they will do this to avoid a crisis like with the newdeal and how congress got a whole new set of powers in regulating interstate commerce.
This is false. We are not talking about whether the president goes to prison. We are talking about whether he keeps his job. I have no necessary presumption of innocence in my employment This is a direct action by a government agency to prosecute an elected official. It doesn't seem to be the same scenario of you at your employment. At your employment, most states are at will and then there are a few government protected reasons for dismissal but if they fire you for the wrong reasons, you have recourse with lawsuits and unemployment and all. The president can only be removed from office in one particular way, for a small set of reasons in comparisons. And in order to set those reasons in motion, he has to be accused of violating a law of a serious nature. And for this, I don't think the two are comparable.
Here is a source of a lot of confusion. The president doesn't claim the law is unconstitutional, he is claiming it does apply under a certain set of circumstances because the consti
Clinton this, Bush that...GASP!!! The argument always seems to stray off topic to the who's and what's surrounding 9-11 whenever we discuss Bush and the current adminstration and it is always the same goddamn argument!!! There are very few people on this planet who know the truth surrounding 9-11 and unfortuanely, to spill the beans means 100% implication in one of the largest single mass murders of our lifetime. And yes, I do think that there was a plan on both sides set into action on 9-11. In other words, keep arguing for your respective parties...it keeps them safe from exposure for their criminal negligence and keeps them fat and rich. The plan is right on schedule .The sequential catrostrophic events and loss of human life for the past 7 years have happened in perfect order for the profit of the shareholders worldwide in what commodity, what stock? Who were the major stakeholders? Who's wallets got fatter and fatter as kids died overseas? The problem is that the selfless public servitude to our nation has been skewed with the aspirations of capital gain. Lincoln and Jefferson encouraged us to question government, because we pay their salaries...Franklin opted for death and danger before his loss of liberty (I am sure he would be a the front of the line in the protest against his email being read or phone being tapped were he alive today). We can argue that this is 21st centrury intelligence gathering and that's fine. Just GET A GODDAMN COURT ORDER BEFORE CRAWLING UP MY ASS AND READING MY EMAIL. I don't think that's too much to ask. And as far as the Patriot Act is concerned...a lot of lawmakers in the house and senate should resign for not actually reading the goddamn thing before passing it. The entire system is broken and the only thing that it seems that our current government has been successful at lately is just pissing the rest of the world off. The problem with our government, whether we like it our not is it's ethnocentricity. Yeah, I said it. Only an ethnocentric bunch would 'mosey' into the affairs of another country uninvited for any reason (especially if they have a trade embargo against you) and force your business on them (or buying out shit that isn't for sale to begin with) or better yet expect that they sould be relieved because we are there to 'rescue' them. Bush could argue for his movement into Iraq after his failure (of not finding weapons of mass destruction) that it was for Iraqi 'human rights' but we all know that is bullshit, because he wiped his ass with ours...why would he respect any other country's people? I just think its sick...to think of Bush and then think of our forefathers at the same time and to know how bad it really has become. Regardless of your political affiliation, there is no denying the failures and tresspesses of the current administration. People do not attack unprovoked, it is not in human nature. This time around, the CIA created a monster...and yep, good ol daddy was in charge then. To the Bush legacy...this is just another hostile take over, and junior has yet to run a successful business to this day. If you look at the pictures from back in the cold war...you will end up seeing the same ugly faces except a little younger! Folks, the plan may have been tweaked here and there but, it has stayed somewhat the same all of these years.
I think you are taking it further then the situation requires it. The president claiming he had powers from the constitution under certain circumstances to do something congress has passed a law that restricted this ability is directly a conflict between congress and the president. Congress could pass a law tomorrow saying th president doesn't need a warrant from the FISA court to do the same things as long as he reported it like he was doing and it would still stand constitutional muster. So this is specifically about congress placing restriction on the president.
No, this is not about Congress placing restriction on the President. This is about Congress defining a restriction which is placed on the President by the Fourth Amendment. It's "vague statement in Constitution" in one corner, versus "vague statement in the Constitution" + statute in the other. Should the Fourth amendment really not do it for you, take the executive using funds provided by Congress for things which Congress has forbidden, or the explicitly enumerated power of the congress to make rules governing the armed forces.
Well, I wish this would go to the courts. The problem is, you have to feel to have a right that is protected by the constitution in order to disregard a law, then they prosecute you for this violation and you argue your side in court.
This much is true. An implication you make here, however, is not. The Presidency does *not* convey rights. It conveys powers.
Seeing how the justice department was involved in making the decisions to violate this, they seem to believe the right was there too and won't prosecute. Bush's new justice department, yes. Those serving at the time reportedly threatened to resign over it. Now, congress will move in and it might goto the courts, but at this stage, the courts will likely side with the president anyways. And I think they will do this to avoid a crisis like with the New Deal and how congress got a whole new set of powers in regulating interstate commerce. As to your presumption of the position of the court, I think it better to read the law as it is written, and let the courts prove us wrong if they feel they need to. I think it quite inappropriate to base our interpretation of the law upon our assumptions of political wrangling on the part of the courts.
Following a tangent... Congress has always had the power to regulate interstate commerce. It is explicitly provided in the Constitution. What happened here (and I agree it was ridiculous) was a broadening of the interpretation of that clause to include... just about anything. This is not necessarily any argument for a more powerful executive. There are a number of power relationships in our system, the two key ones here being that between the executive and the legislative, and that between the people and the federal government. How we deal with the first effects the second, and it is the second which I eye with greater concern. This claim of powers by the executive shifts power away from the Congress, 'tis true, but also away from the people. The appropriate remedy is to address the bloat in the role of Congress in ways that reduce the power of the federal government as a whole.
This is a direct action by a government agency to prosecute an elected official. It doesn't seem to be the same scenario of you at your employment. At your employment, most states are at will and then there are a few government protected reasons for dismissal but if they fire you for the wrong reasons, you have recourse with lawsuits and unemployment and all. The president can only be removed from office in one particular way, for a small set of reasons in comparisons. And in order to set those reasons in motion, he has to be accused of violating a law of a serious nature. And for this, I don't think the two are comparable.
I agree, and as I mentioned I think a presumption of innocence is quite reasonable in cases of impeachment. My point (not as c
Or the specific enumerated powers of the president to be commander in chief in times of war. I mean if we are going to mention all the pros, lets mention them. But you have to remember, this isn't my argument. This is what I understand the president's to be. I am not prepared to argue the legitimacy of it and I don't wish to. So, far, All the opposition to it totally disregards the president's position as if he has never stated it. Ironically, this isn't the first time key elements are forgotten because a point the opposition wants to make depends on it. Now, it the powers of commander in chief, and the declaration to use any force necessary does give the president the powers to do what he claims, everything you brought up, while being a valid point, doesn't apply in that specific situation and set of circumstances.
And something to remember, The president's position isn't that he can do whatever he wants. He has stated that it is specific situations were this power or obligation comes into play. I don't think your grasping that with the generalizations in your comments. This isn't a "in general" situation.
Well, one of the problems is that Nancy Pelosi has a conflict of interest in impeaching both Bush and Cheney. It's like this:
The order of succession is:
1. President (Bush)
2. VP (Cheney)
3. Speaker of the House of Representatives (Pelosi)
But, an impeachment must start in the House of Representatives. So if Pelosi is leading a simultaneous impeachment of both Bush and Cheney, she could be accused (legitimately or not, doesn't matter) with trying to use parlimentary games to install herself as President. So, in this instance she can't focus on what the country needs most, becuase her very attention could prevent the effort from succeeding. Ironic, no?
Pelosi has stated that impeachment is "off the table," in part to prevent this conflict from arising. If the political will to begin impeachment arises elsewhere in the house (see, for example, Dennis Kucinich's articles of impeachment that target Cheney) she can perhaps be persuaded to reluctantly allow debate on the issue. However, I can't understand any reason that her statement should apply to Cheney or to Gonzales.
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
This administration has wiped itself repeatedly with the Constitution. There is no Constitutional question involved. The Congress has every power it needs to call the Executive to task. The Executive has no right to refuse this request, especially when it concerns criminal acts on the part of the Executive.
Remember the good old days when we Congress was yelling to impeach Clinton over a bit of sex and a lie or two? Now we have a sitting President and Vice President who have repeatedly told Congress to go to hell and who have repeatedly said they will do and have done whatever they want with impunity. What the hell is wrong with this country? Why are we putting up with this?
Or the specific enumerated powers of the president to be commander in chief in times of war.
On the contrary, it's a fairly vague statement. It assigns a role, but what powers come with that role are left to interpretation. It is ridiculous to assert that this power is unchecked.
Incidentally, the President is always Commander-In-Chief of the Army and the Navy (and by extension the Air Force). The limitation to a time of war applies only to the militias of the various States (which means the National Guard).
But you have to remember, this isn't my argument. This is what I understand the president's to be. I am not prepared to argue the legitimacy of it and I don't wish to.
Wait, what? So your position is that the president *making an argument* is sufficient, regardless of the merit of that argument? Forgive me if I hesitate in jumping on the "good little subject" bandwagon, there. I think it imperative that we argue these points, in pursuit of both the proper solution in the matter at hand and a better understanding of how our government can work, does work, and should work.
So, far, All the opposition to it totally disregards the president's position as if he has never stated it.
That is completely false. Perhaps a case could be made that this is done in situations like Democratic campaign rallies, although I've not followed those so closely as to know one way or the other. The administration's position, however, was listened to and analyzed when Gonzales gave testimony on the matter before the Senate. I have certainly given it consideration.
Ironically, this isn't the first time key elements are forgotten because a point the opposition wants to make depends on it. Now, it the powers of commander in chief, and the declaration to use any force necessary does give the president the powers to do what he claims, everything you brought up, while being a valid point, doesn't apply in that specific situation and set of circumstances.
There is a legal principle which states that a more specific bill takes precedence over a more general bill. Authorization is broadly granted to the President to use "all necessary and appropriate force". When it comes to wiretapping, he is elsewhere rather more explicitly forbidden from engaging in certain activities. Further, I do not think it at all unreasonable to stipulate that uses of force (if that is what wiretapping is) which are expressly prohibited by statute are deemed "inappropriate".
And something to remember, The president's position isn't that he can do whatever he wants. He has stated that it is specific situations were this power or obligation comes into play. I don't think your grasping that with the generalizations in your comments. This isn't a "in general" situation.
It is not the specific claim, but the argument being used. If 1) the President has extraordinary powers in certain situations and 2) the President decides which powers those are and 3) the President determines the situations in which they apply, then effectively we have an unchecked executive, and therefore a recipe for tyranny. This is not to say that we are living under a tyranny presently; this is simply to say that we must mind the precedent we set.
You cannot charge a law as unconstitutional or anything unless it directly effect you in taking a right away. If congress passes a law that says all farmers must become roman catholic, if you are not a farmer, you cannot fight this law in court unless your doing so on the behalf of a farmer. In this same idea, the president can't fight a law the prohibits something he has a right to do if what he says is true, unless he is attempting to violate it. In this same sense, when he said that one the program was ineffective after it was headline news so there wasn't enough advantage in continuing it, he is effected by the law. So he isn't going to fight it.
I do not understand what you are saying here. Please clarify.