Slashdot Mirror
US House Rejects Telecom Amnesty
The US House has just approved a new bill that rejects the retroactive immunity to telecommunication businesses and denies most of the new powers for the US President to spy on citizens without a warrant. "As impressive as the House vote itself was, more impressive still was the floor debate which preceded it. I can't recall ever watching a debate on the floor of either House of Congress that I found even remotely impressive -- until today. One Democrat after the next -- of all stripes -- delivered impassioned, defiant speeches in defense of the rule of law, oversight on presidential eavesdropping, and safeguards on government spying. They swatted away the GOP's fear-mongering claims with the dismissive contempt such tactics deserve, rejecting the principle that has predominated political debate in this country since 9/11: that the threat of the Terrorists means we must live under the rule of an omnipotent President and a dismantled constitutional framework."
Separation of powers is a good thing; the more conflict between the White House and Capitol Hill, the less the rights and incomes of the American citizenry will be eroded.
Being in the miority during those years might ahve ahd something to do with it, as well as trusting what the president had said about WMDs.
At that time, it wasn't unreasonable to believe the president. Of course, now that we know he lied, he should be tossed out, perferable on the last day in office, so he still gets it noted in the history books, but Cheney has no time to do anything else.
hmm, or maybe do it sooner, and then toss Cheney out for lying as well, preferably on the same day.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That's what it started out as. Now, it's an organization dedicated to defending those parts of the Constitution it approves of and those interpretations that match its agenda. The ACLU has made it quite plain a number of times that it will not, under any circumstances defend the Second Amendment. As long as that's its position, I, among many others, want nothing to do with it.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Ultimately, the only reason these "Blue Dogs Democrats" finally saw the light was because folks like the people at Firedoglake decided to start raising funds to help their primary opponents in the next election.
It's amazing what a little fear of losing their cushy job can make a recalcitrant politician do.
Still, they are to be commended for finally saying "No" to the spoiled child in the White House.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The reason why the Bush administration wants the blanket immunity is to cover their own asses for after 2008. The Democrats won't bother doing anything now because they know the Justice Department will cover Bush's ass. But after January '09, Presidential pardons likely will no longer be an option.
When Bush leaves, criminal prosecutions by a Democrat-run Justice Department against telecom employees might get them to inform on the illegal behaviour carried out by Bush administration officials in a plea bargain. With telecom immunity however, the Bush/Telecom omerta can continue.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
They won't listen. Remember that these are the hardcore 30% that keep approving of Bush's job. Even though he and his administration have been lying and distorting the truth for some time now. They won't read the links that show his illegal activities such as unprecedented overturning of the EPA.
These same people would vote for Bush again. With all the evidence out there, it makes you wonder, doesn't it?
The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation...
Agreeing with the Supreme Court makes you... wait for it... Conservative.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
The word "people" is no different in the second than in any other instance in the constitution. People means the people. There are no magical dual meanings.
And the founders were very clear as to intent, people back then owned what they wanted to, fullstop, there were no restrictive gun laws based on anything until the "jim crow" racist laws started. ( albeit, to be quite fair, slavery in general though was one of two instances of the founders really screwing up, that and the "general welfare" clause) That's right, antigunners got their start as racists, right along with the poll tax, anti "miscegenation" laws, and so on. As to militia, the inclusion was to specify who of "the people" could be called up to serve the governor, that is the organized militia (everyone else is unorganized militia and can be volunteers, but can't be compelled to serve, the organized and then by default "other" or unorganized in total is "the people"), but it had nothing to do with who could keep or bear, that goes back to "the people". Out of the complete pool of the people, a certain subset could be mustered and can't sday no, but it has to be a damn real emergency to, not some bankers war over yonder so a few big companies can make profits.
And the miller decision was seriously flawed, laughably so, absurdly so and easily proven. It was about a short barrel shotgun, saying it had no "militia" purpose. bullcrap, the founders knew there were different weapons and made zero exceptions, these were highly educated and erudite writers, they would have included exceptions if they wanted them., they didn't. Google for "trench gun" used in ww1, which was prior to the miller decision. You have to remember history then, the government was scared shitless of some physical revolt happening, the bankster fraudsters and their sock puppet politician dweebs had screwed the economy over and ripped off 90% of the population and the "people" were getting righteously pissed off about it. *That* is why you got the miller decision, it was mandated from on high to start gradually disarming the US people to protect fatcats from righteous wrath (that they deserved back then).
I quit the NRA in 68 because it was obvious they were sellouts, the establishment got to them and they got compromised (again, also quite clearly at the time racist, they didn't want black folks getting any more guns because of the failure of the civil rights act of 64 and the resultant riots, we needed "law-n-order!!"). If you were around back then you could remember it, I do because I was involved in both civil rights/freedom in general, conservation issues and gun rights (still am but sort of semi retired now).
I never joined the ACLU because they have a centralized controlled government bent that is at odds with a lot of other freedoms (like where are they on constitutional money? absent) I think it is OK they are fighting for free speech, but as an over all org I give them a c-. They could be much better. That this is all we have though, I agree, pitiful.
The NRA exists today as a jobs program for the fatcats who run it. they have done nothing but compromise and give in on every critical point as long as I can remember, and have been consistently on the "wrong" side of every major issue. Wrong on scamwar viet nam, wrong on compromising on gun rights, wrong about the war on some drugs (prohibition II), wrong about supporting the arbusto gang and his crew of fascist fear mongersand.. and a big huge list going way back, I'm not going to type all night.
They are the "useful idiots" center for know nothings who cannot read nor think and it keeps them from being really effective, clueless knobs join them and think that is enough. Stupid, but so it goes. Other gun rights orgs are much better, run by better people who actually understand the whole idea and the real law and the structure of the USA as a completely different concept than any other nation ever conceived, where the individual
The 2nd amendment is meant to ensure that MILITIAS continue to exist by giving INDIVIDUALS the right to keep weapons.
Beyond the fact of giving individuals the right to own weapons, it further gives those armed individuals to be a part of a well regulated militia. Not only are guns then protected, but so is being part of a practiced, organized, private group that trains in the effective military use of those guns. Not a hunting club or a target sport club, but a militia. What do you think the DHS would do if they found proof of the existence in the US of an actual militia that trained together regularly?
We are all just people.
All of this has happened before, and will happen again, unless we actually take note of history (i.e. Founding Fathers, etc) and apply the lessons learned to our present and future. I strongly suggest that no one denigrate the influence or applicability of the principles set forth by those few who had the balls to stand up to an oppressive king and give him the ol' finger better than 200 years ago.
The times have changed, as has technology, but the underlying tenets of the Constitution still apply, and We the People (as defined in the constitution), as well as our elected congresscritters need to learn to recognize that.
I am rather amazed and pleased that the Dems decided to grow a spine, and vote to stop letting these things happen.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. --James Madison