No, it's not. That is not a power of the federal government at all, it is a preamble of the enumerated powers to follow. So which actual power of Congress are you referring to?
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
That's not a 'preamble'. It's the first statement of the powers of Congress. They can collect money to spend on providing for the common defence and general welfare.
Yes, the collecting money is an enumerated power for "the common defence and general welfare" is an enumerated power. However, "the common defence and general welfare" is not broad, but specifically defined by the following powers. The phrase "the common defence and general welfare" is a preamble to what follows. So spending money on "the general welfare" is not an enumerated power: spending money on post roads is an enumerated power.
James Madison wrote much about this.
I never implied he did. I simply stated the fact that he defends the country. He does it within, to some degree, the rules provided by the Congress. But the Congress is not doing the actual defense, and has no power to do so. They only have the power to provide for it in various enumerated and implied ways, and then the President has the power to actually do it.
Yes, he does. He directs all federal law enforcement, including the FBI, border patrol, ATF, and so on.
The president actually runs everything. Are you arguing that he has the right to operate the Post Office (Another Congressional power) however he wants because it's in the executive?
No. Why would you think I meant that? I never implied anything of the sort.
The 'national security' claim is the same thing.
I made no such claim.
Any powers he has there have been granted him by legislation, and thus can be removed or restricted by more legislation.
Sure. I never said anything different.
Legislation like, oh, FISA.
Yes, and?
Have you any example at all, other than the existence of liability waivers?
Here is the law granting immunity, and exceptions to immunity, under US tort law. Only 'Federal Agencies' and people working under them have immunity. This 'does not include any contractor with the United States.'
So, no, you do not.
False. You are ignoring the fact that you DO NOT KNOW the details of this program. They never said that it was "solely a wiretapping program." Where did you get that from?
You know, this is the stupidest defense of this program ever.
Translation: "you came up with an argument I can't argue against, so NOW I AM MAD!"
The only thing anyone has ever asserted, and I include executive branch officials who were before Congress, is that this is 'wiretapping' and 'surveillance'.
Yes.
And?
If it is a classified program (which it still is), then why would you expect them to offer additional details?
Gonzales liked to assert, sometimes, that it was more than one program, or maybe there's another actual program in there somewhere
It was no mere assertion, it was fact. And it's beside the point. What he was talking about was the fact that the original program they infamously tried to get Ashcroft to sign off on is a different program than what was actually implemented and became news a couple of years ago.
What person in their right mind would believe that the President was exercising lawful authority when a reading of the Constitution makes it abundantly clear that the President has no such authority except as a result of congressional authority? The Constitution makes no such thing "abundantly clear."
If you don't believe me then read the Constitution for yourself. I've read it many times.
The section enumerating the independent power of the executive is blissfully short and clear, and makes no mention at all of any law enforcement authority on the part of the executive whatsoever. You've gone from "abundantly clear" to "inference." Inference is not clarity.
That section plus the tenth amendment make it abundantly clear that the executive has no power to act in a law enforcement capacity outside the restrictions set forth by congress. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Tenth Amendment, period. The Tenth Amendment is a limitation on the power of the federal government, not on any specific part of the federal government. If the President cannot do something because the Tenth Amendment restricts him, then neither is Congress allowed to permit the President to do it.
It is true that the Supreme Court has given very little guidance as to whether or not warrantless wiretaps are a violation of the 4th amendment, but given the FISA law and the fact that the executive blatantly violated it, I think it's clear that the wiretaps needn't be a 4th amendment violation to nevertheless be unconstitutional, since the wiretaps in question were conducted without congressional authority and, therefore, without Constitutional authority. Fine. Tell that to the FISA Court of Review, which noted "the President's inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance."
Again, I tend to agree with your sentiment, and have said so for years now, and I think the Court of Review here was wrong. But there's a lot of disagreement on the subject, and the Constitution is not "abundantly clear" on it.
I knew eventually we'd get to Ronald Reagan. I agree with you completely, except WRT the Republican party from Reagan to Bush. You think they were 'small government', I do not.
That is when the shift (back) began, with Reagan, and it was the cornerstone of the 1994 revolution.
(And pretending the Republican party at the turn of the century has anything to do with the current one is silly.)
Oh stop it. I can just as easily, then, say that the Republican party in 1954 has nothing to do with the one today.
Anyway, 'small-government' Reagan started a massive arms race with the Soviet Union.
You do not understand small-government conservatism. Small-government is at least as much about the size of the SCOPE as actual size: limiting the government to what it should be involved in. Clearly, military and national defense is one of those things. The question is not, to a small-government conservative, how big the military should be, because the question is obvious: as big as is necessary (and clearly, Reagan was correct on that). The question is about WHAT the government should be involved with in the first place.
He quadrupled the debt.
Yes, but his budgets, if implemented as submitted, would have resulted in a balanced budget by the end of his term. It's Democrats who increased spending. Funny how Reagan critics like to ignore that little fact.
No, the theory of conservatives has been that since the 50s, although not as far as the Libertarians take it.... The actual party didn't start the small government rhetoric until Reagan...
You are conflating, and therefore incorrect. I was addressing your incorrect definition of "conservative," which is separate from the Republican party.
And you are quite wrong about the party, as well. You've apparently never heard of Barry Goldwater... ?
The Republican party 100 years ago (Well, 110 years ago, really.) may have been mostly liberals as opposed to the progressives on the other side, and been against most spending, but classic liberalism, and anti-progressivism, isn't the same as conservativism or libertarianism.
Shrug. I don't know where you get that. Calvin Coolidge is most remembered as being pro-business (which, of course, is the same as today's conservatives), but he was also what we would today call a "true conservative." It was he who said, "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration has been minding my own business." And: "Government cannot relieve from toil. The normal must take care of themselves. Self-government means self-support.... Ultimately property rights and personal rights are the same thing."
Coolidge spoke often of morality and the importance of religion and faith, of elimination of debt, of creating wealth rather than redistributing it, of limited government.
We could go back a little further. Taft said, "The world is not going to be saved by legislation." And: "Next to the right of liberty, the right of property is the most important individual right guaranteed by the Constitution and the one which, united with that of personal liberty, has contributed more to the growth of civilization than any other institution established by the human race." And: "No tendency is quite so strong in human nature as the desire to lay down rules of conduct for other people." And: "Socialism proposes no adequate substitute for the motive of enlightened selfishness that to-day is at the basis of all human labor and effort, enterprise and new activity."
I don't know where you get this idea that conservatism in the GOP has changed much in the last 100 years. It hasn't.
... I'm not entirely sure where you're getting the Republicans were 'small government' before the progressive realignment in the 00s.
No, it's not. It's the job of the Executive. The Congress can set some rules for how that is done, but the Executive does that work. Do I need to pull out the constitution? Apparently!
Providing for the 'common defence' is the job of the legislative branch. No, it's not. That is not a power of the federal government at all, it is a preamble of the enumerated powers to follow. So which actual power of Congress are you referring to?
The president doesn't get to override their laws in cases of 'national security', if anything, they get to override him. I never implied he did. I simply stated the fact that he defends the country. He does it within, to some degree, the rules provided by the Congress. But the Congress is not doing the actual defense, and has no power to do so. They only have the power to provide for it in various enumerated and implied ways, and then the President has the power to actually do it.
You can argue that he has some special powers (like the right to collect military intelligence) that come with operating the military, but he has no 'national defense' powers at all outside of the military. Yes, he does. He directs all federal law enforcement, including the FBI, border patrol, ATF, and so on.
(And the NSA is not part of the military.) Yes, and the NSA too.
I know people keep imagining they see them in the Constitution, but those powers simply do not exist. Any powers he has there have been granted him by legislation, and thus can be removed or restricted by more legislation. Sure. I never said anything different.
Contractors ARE employed by the government. It's easy enough to say that, but there's plenty of caselaw that says the government asking you to do something doesn't absolve you from legal liability against third parties. Have you any example at all, other than the existence of liability waivers?
Just ask the bounty hunters that have huge insurance premiums, and look at all the laws that shield contractors. Again, you are using the same terribly illogical example, comparing apples and oranges. Immunity extends to those actions specifically contracted for by the government, not everything else you do along the way. Same as for any elected official. Which is why, for example, a certain CA congressman went to jail for HOW he performed his duties, when he took bribes.
Shrug. My point is that there's no reason to hold the President responsible for it when Congress -- the only body charged with holding him responsible -- chooses not to. (Well, and the other point is that you clearly don't know enough to hold him responsible for it anyway, since you don't know much about the program.) I do hold Congress responsible! That was my point! But you were primarily the President.
That doesn't mean anyone's lied. Yes it does, either that or wrongdoing. False. You are ignoring the fact that you DO NOT KNOW the details of this program.
What it means we can't determine who is lying. Either the gang of eight is lying to the rest of Congress by pretending that what they were told about is solely a wiretapping program They never said that it was "solely a wiretapping program." Where did you get that from?
or it means that the executive lied to them that it was We have no evidence he ever said that to them.
The 'party' you're talking about is the libertarian wing, which is about 10% of the Republican party, and combined with the actual Libertarian Party, composes at most 15% of the active voters in this country, probably close to half that.
Not at all, in fact. It is the primary basis for the modern Republican party.
That's not a recipe to just lose elections, that's a recipe to lose them so badly you lose ballot access!
Nope. The reason the GOP won in 1994 was because of its small government platform, and the biggest reason it has lost is because it abandoned that platform.
Just FYI
FYI, I know far more about the GOP than you do.
that's not actually the traditional Republican party
It depends on how you look at it. It's not the GOP of the 60s and 70s, no, but it is the GOP of the 80s and 90s, and the GOP of 100 years ago, too. It's why TR broke off from the GOP for the 1912 election (and why Taft lost to Wilson... the one big mistake TR made).
Granted, the roots of the GOP lie in social liberalism: fighting for abolitionism, prohibition, suffrage. But all this (excepting prohibitionism, of course) also went hand-in-hand with a strong belief in individual liberty and keeping the government out of the way. There's always been a tension in the GOP between the libertarian-conservative and social-conservative elements, back to the very beginning (which again, you can see even in Lincoln himself: against slavery, but not willing to force states to give it up... until the war, of course). Go ahead and look at the criticism Lincoln endured from the "social conservatives" (at the time, liberals) who want to abolish slavery right away.
or traditional conservative principles
Wow. Um. I have no idea what definition of "conservative principles" you are using, but no, conservatism in this country since the 50s has been marked by precisely what I was referring to. See the fathers of modern conservatism like WFB and Milton Friedman. What I am expressing IS conservatism, as popularly understood, and as conservatives (other than "social conservatives," although there is a lot of overlap) self-identify. Conservatism and libertarianism are practically indistinguishable, which is why WFB called himself both for many years. It's why in WA, most Republicans agreed with what the liberartarian Senate candidate said in the debates.
You're trying to steer the party a certain way, the party didn't 'abandon' that position, it never held it
Not in whole, sure. No party is pure throughout. But the conservative part of the GOP dominated the party through the second half of the 80s and through the 90s, specifically repudiating the (relative) liberalism of Eisenhower and Nixon. And again, abandoning that is why the GOP has lost Republican voters. You say you know about the GOP, but everyone around the GOP -- including those voters who have left the party -- agree that the GOP's main problem is abandoning Republican principles of small and limited government, property rights, and so on.
Case in point: when the GOP swept into power in 1994, it did the same thing here in WA. Over the next few years, the GOP lost its grasp on the legislature here. The two wings of the GOP -- social conservatives, and business conservatives (again, a lot of overlap) -- first supported the business conservative interests. But when it came time to support social conservatism, the business conservatives balked, thinking it would lose them elections. So in order to remain in power, having created a rift with the social conservatives, they believed they needed to support some big-government plans so they could bring in some moderate Democrats.
Because of this, over time -- and not over a long time, just 10 years, as they lost their last hold on power in 2004 -- many Republican voters stopped voting. Some stopped because of social
I am saying A is legal because the President has the authority to do A, so anyone doing A on his behalf cannot be held liable for that. You are saying, that's wrong, because if A is legal and they are doing A, well... what if they also do B?! There is an governmental concept that says the government cannot be sued, and that includes government employees who are doing their jobs. But not in YOUR scenario, no. If that were a government employee who was in an accident without a license while doing his job, you absolutely could sue.
Spying on enemy troop positions during a war, sure, but defending the country in general is Congress' job, not the president No, it's not. It's the job of the Executive. The Congress can set some rules for how that is done, but the Executive does that work.
You think the second is what means you can't sue the executive branch False.
You can't sue the executive, you can't sue the legislature, you can't sue the judical Only for official government actions. Not for things they do wrong in the course of those actions. You can sue any Congressman, President, or Judge for ruining your lawn on a drunken drive around town on their way to or from official duties.
Hence, it's easy to show that any 'executive' immunity doesn't grant any sort of immunity on contractors False. If they are doing official government work contracted by the Executive, that work is immune.
If you want government immunity for an action, you have to be employed by the government Contractors ARE employed by the government.
That's a matter of interpretation, of course, since we don't know much about the program. So you can't claim with any real certainty that it doesn't apply. Unless everyone's been lying to us, it isn't a matter of interpretation. False. You're just not thinking enough. Here's an example: maybe this program is essentially a sting operation of some kind. The warrantless wiretapping was only a small part of it, the part we know about. You just don't know enough about the program.
That. Is. Why. I. Am. Angry. With. Them. Shrug. My point is that there's no reason to hold the President responsible for it when Congress -- the only body charged with holding him responsible -- chooses not to. (Well, and the other point is that you clearly don't know enough to hold him responsible for it anyway, since you don't know much about the program.)
But don't argue with me, argue with the Congressional Research Service's report, "Statutory Procedures Under Which Congress Is To Be Informed of U.S. Intelligence Activities, Including Covert Actions". It said that 'the NSA surveillance program would appear to fall... Yes, "would appear." Based only on what we know. The problem is, there's potentially a lot about the program we don't know. That doesn't mean anyone's lied. They've been very up front, all of them, that there's things they are not telling us about the program.
I don't know what happened to you guys and your party. I think you were relying on demagogues too long, you ceded too much power to Limbaughes and gratefully accepted anyone who showed up to 'fight the liberals', and then, when the head of the party turned to lunacy, those people went gleefully along, as all the sane Republicans stood around in shock and dropped out one by one.
The people who are most angry about the direction of the party are in large part the people who still listen to Limbaugh. It's got absolutely nothing to do with that. It's all about the tactics of selecting candidates themselves, which is largely about ABANDONING our principles, not being "demagogues" on them. Whoever was the most "electable" against Democrats would be picked, which is a code word for "liberal on certain issues."
For example, Bush is a liberal on many things. Just see his Medicare prescription drug plan and No Child Left Behind. We've accepted these candidates and programs, as a party, because we thought we needed to do that in order to win election. THIS is what has crippled the party.
And frankly, what most people think of as the "sane" Republicans are the biggest part of the problem. These are the liberal and moderate Republicans who pretend the Tenth Amendment doesn't exist, and who think compromising on fundamental principles on a regular basis is just fine thank you, and who cares about the conservative base if you can win the independent moderates? This is a recipe for destruction of any party.
The torture thing is a bullshit issue. Who is in favor of torture? Barely anyone. The Dems are trying to make an issue where it isn't. Sens. McCain and Graham got together with Bush and the Democrats and passed the MCA last year. They all AGREED on torture: we won't do it. If there's a practice being done that you think is torture, fine, then have Congress categorize it as such. That's how it should work, and if the Dems felt so strongly about it, why aren't they trying to categorize more things as torture? Either because they know they aren't being done and so there'd be no opposition and they'd lose the issue, or because they actually believe the procedure isn't wrong and don't want it to be taken away.
I honestly don't know if you're going to be able to get your party back.
It's already happening. We are returning to princple.
But I think you're wrong. Single-payer universal health care will work
No, it won't.
and it will be cheaper than the existing system
No, it won't.
(As evidenced by the fact that we pay more, per capita, than any country with it.)
That's an illusion. We pay more out of pocket, yes, but that is with price controls and other restrictions on private business that hurts the economy, contributing to overall depression in wages and employment rates. Plus, as you likely know, Americans get a lot more and better health care for their health care dollars than almost all the other countries, so it's comparing apples and oranges.
And, of course, economic cost is not all that matters: liberty matters even more. Enough said.
Finally, even if you were right, the statement woulud be irrelevant, because you are only comparing single-payer to our current system, which NO ONE supports. It's not single-payer versus what we have now, it is single-payer versus a true market-based solution that we don't currently have. So I won't even address most of the rest of what you say, because it falsely assumes that the alternative to single-payer (or more socialization, more government control) is the status quo. I am not defending the status quo, and neither is anyone else.
What really pisses me off though is that single-payer plans don't address the real problem directly, which is the cost of health care. Hillary's plan (which is not single-payer, granted, but it is based on similar principles) would do nothing to actually decrease costs.
Is a duly-authorized bounty hunter, if while attempting to legally apprehend someone, in a car accident without a license, is he liable for damages? Of course he is. I am saying A is legal because the President has the authority to do A, so anyone doing A on his behalf cannot be held liable for that. You are saying, that's wrong, because if A is legal and they are doing A, well... what if they also do B?!
It's a nonsensical comparison.
His oath of office includes respecting his oath of secrecy. There may be some cases where violating that oath of secrecy is warranted, but this is clearly not one of them, for multiple reasons: first because that oath of secrecy is much more important than this one issue, and second because he had other means at his disposal than violating that oath. He could have put a hold on it, he could have tried to stop funding, he could have done many things he chose to not do. You realize at this point we're not disagreeing, right? Except in the part where you stated he should have risked past, future, and present security of the nation by not respecting his oath to secrecy.
Allowing the executive branch to invent areas of secrecy is a terrible precedent. OK. Good thing that never happened, then, huh?
No, that's mistaken. See 50 USC 413b(c)(2). That applies to covert actions:
[...]
In other words, covert actions, at least in this section, are black-ops, not spying. That's a matter of interpretation, of course, since we don't know much about the program. So you can't claim with any real certainty that it doesn't apply.
What's more, the Gang of Eight had the authority to then overrule the President and tell their respective committees if he didn't comply with their interpretation of the law, given the specifics of the program. Not a single one of them raised that objection at the time of the program (not even Rockefeller), nor when it was revealed in public, that I recall (and I listened to many of them explain their view on the matter).
And it's rather hard to argue that wiretapping is for something other than acquiring intelligence. It's really hard to see how you can know enough about the program to make that judgment.
I never remotely thought or expressed any such thing. Damn! I was going to quote a few jewels from that journal, but there's just too many. None that support anything you said I said.
For now a tiny sample: The second is that there is a HUGE waiting list for organs, and the LAST people they should go to are people who are criminals....
And I am saying prison inmates is a similarly poor use, and that it should be a disqualification. Yes. And since putting them to the bottom of the organ donor list is not "denying 'em medical care" -- or even denying them organs, just making them wait longer -- you therefore admit you are a liar, right? Even if you do maintain that putting someone to the end of the organ donor list is "denying" them that particular medical procedure, it certainly does not support your lie that I want to deny them all medicare are.
But hey, if you DO come up with any quote of mine that even remotely shows me to be in favor of denying health care to prison inmates, feel free to share.
Anyway, yes, because we all know that everybody in prison is a criminal. Red herring. But at least it is not another lie! You're improving!
The Republican base isn't going to vote for a Democrat, period. They'll hold their noise and vote for Ron Paul if he win the nomination.
Um, there's a third option. We saw it in 2006: they stay home. Many Republicans will not vote for Ron Paul.
Meanwhile, many of the Republican who left the GOP thanks to the war will be back if any Republican shows up who's anti-war and anti-general-Bush-stupidity.
Nope. Generally speaking, the former Republicans who left because of the war won't vote for Paul. The only former Republicans who left and would vote for Paul are those who left long before the war anyway. Those are among the libertarian independents.
Ron Paul is somehow in the 'center right' of the American people.
Not if he wins the nomination, he won't be. In fact, he is extreme right, and that would come out.
he's far enough 'left' (If by left we mean 'anti-war') that the center (Which is entirely anti-war) would vote for him.
No, he is not. He is not, in any way at all, "left." There is no issue on which he is "left." (And no, anti-Iraq-war is not "left." Ask that socialist/communist Pat Buchanan.)
That's not true. Only a tiny percentage of Republicans, and a significant minority -- yes, minority -- of everyone else wants universal health care. Oh sure, insipid polls that ask "if you could get something for free, or make sure others have something for free, would you take it?" have a majority saying yes. But when you ask them about specific plans, and do an actual cost-benefit analysis of how much it would cost to help how many people... the numbers drop significantly. Even moreso if you compare it to a market-based solution.
Republican consultant Tony Fabrizio took a poll (Sorry, PDF) in June this year. Look on Page 51. 51% think universal health care should be a guaranteed right, and only 43% think otherwise. (And 'it should be a guaranteed right' is a bit more extreme than simply saying 'It should exist right now.'.)
Yes, and that poll is complete nonsense, because it doesn't ask the question in any context. It's a completely useless poll. It's fantasy. It in no way predicts how people will react to actual universal health care plans.
Now granted, I fully accept -- indeed, it is a point I made in regard to Paul -- that people are not philosophically oppposed to universal health care, as they logically should be if they care about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the principles upon which they are based. But they will be, in an overwhelming majority, opposed to any actual plan that tries to offer it, for practical reasons (although what they don't realize is that the philosophical objections are based on the inevitable practical realities), which is why not even Hillary Clinton or John Edwards are proposing to do it.
Oh, sorry. I think people don't want those things to happen, but it's entirely possible they don't know they don't want those things to happen.
Oh, they do. All Hillary would have to do, the day after Paul wins the nomination, is trot out some kids who got sick because of Chinese products, and then quote Ron Paul saying he wants to abolish the FDA and FTC and so on. The election would be over on Day One.
the other GOP front-runners are unelectable because of the war
Nope.
if Paul can attach the war to the Democrats neck (Like Clinton's.), he could still pull through.
There is simply not even a remote chance of that ever happening. Period. The only way he could win is if there was a huge scandal about Hillary. Like, she's a space alien. Something probably a lot bigger than that rumor about being a lesbian. Paul has no chance to win, at all.
The first option was, if I'm not misreading things, congressional authorization. But congressional authorization has as its basis of legality the very same thing that executive power does: the Constitution.
In the case of the wiretapping in question, the executive branch very clearly didn't have congressional authorization because it violated provisions of the law that congress had passed. Sure. The question is whether that congressional authorization was necessary.
But even if Congress had passed a law allowing the executive branch to conduct warrantless wiretapping directly against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, that congressional authorization would be worthless, because it exceeds (for the very same reasons those who argue the unconstitutionality of the wiretapping in question use) the power granted to both congress and the executive branch by the Constitution. But for practical purposes here, that's a distinction without a difference. If that's the case, then surely the President couldn't be blamed by Congress for exercising authority granted to him by Congress, and since only Congress can hold him accountable, then that's, practically speaking, irrelevant. Similarly, if Congress does not give him authorization, but it is unconstitutional, then it doesn't really matter whether the President is violating the Constitution by ignoring the authority of Congress, or violating the Constitution by ignoring the Fourth Amendment.
If the Constitution doesn't grant a power, then neither the executive branch nor congress have the legal justification to authorize a third party (the telcos, in this specific case) to act based on that power, which means the actions of the third party cannot be excused as a result of acting on behalf of the government (instead of on its own) -- said third party is therefore in that case subject to the standard laws of the land, as if the government was not involved at all. I don't buy it. If you have reasonable belief that the President is exercising a lawful authority, it's not reasonable to say that you've done anything wrong by acting on that, where the Constitutional law is so terribly unclear.
Now, if the Court came down and gave its opinion and THEN the telcos continued to do what the President asked, that would be different. But we're not talking statutes here, we are talking about a very controversial area of Constitutional law, and since we cannot just as the Supreme Court to give us their opinion, we have to make our own best guesses. And if the Supreme Court tells us later that we're wrong, fine, we move forward from there.
What if Congress passed a law saying that no one could help Bush commute Libby's sentence? Sure, Bush would not be breaking the law by asking them to... but any lawyer would be breaking the law by helping him write up the papers! That's patently ridiculous.
Um, actually, Congress has done exactly things like that, although usually attached to funding. Stating that the President can't use any government resources to do X.
No, they haven't. You are changing the scenario to be something other than what I said.
If we assume the president has the power to do these wiretaps, then, yes, he can ask companies to do them, and they couldn't be charged with anything.
However, that wouldn't remove any civil liability the companies incurred, thanks to laws. The law says you can sue them for a certain amount of damages if they wiretap without X's signature, and they wiretapped without X's signature, you can sue them.
And IF the President has the power to do them, then it's bullshit that anyone should be sued for helping the President exercise his legal authority. No dice.
(And, just so we're both clear, neither of actually thinks the president has constitutional authority to order wiretaps on American citizens
Correct, however, unlike you, I recognize that this is an open legal question. If I had to make the legal decision, I'd say he doesn't have that authority. And I don't see where it would come from. But many people smarter than either of us, including people who sit on the FISA Court of Review, disagree with us. So while I think he doesn't have that authority, I recognize it is incorrect to state as a matter of fact that it violates "the law" (unless you specifically mean FISA itself, which is being violated, but has no force of law if it contradicts the Constitution).
But under no circumstances could he have, or would we have, revealed it to a closed session of Congress, which would be an absolute violation of his oath to secrecy. It's not about punishment: he actually takes that oath seriously, knowing that reverernce for the oath itself is far more important than any one issue he may wish were not covered by it.
His oath of secrecy? WTF? How about his oath of office?
His oath of office includes respecting his oath of secrecy. There may be some cases where violating that oath of secrecy is warranted, but this is clearly not one of them, for multiple reasons: first because that oath of secrecy is much more important than this one issue, and second because he had other means at his disposal than violating that oath. He could have put a hold on it, he could have tried to stop funding, he could have done many things he chose to not do.
He learned about apparent lawbreaking and possible unconstitutional behavior, done in secret, by the executive branch and he thought a useful solution to that was to write a letter?
Again, "apparent." He couldn't say it was illegal. (And frankly, I get pissed off whenever people like you mention unconstitutionality as though it is some extremely terrible thing, while at the same time ignoring the Tenth Amendment, which matters to me just as much as the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments [to name but a few].)
You don't go violating your oath and risking national security not just for today, but for the future by setting a terrible precedent, because you think something might be illegal. Anyone who thinks like you apparently do on this issue is unfit to have such security clearance. Thankfully, none of the top Democrats think like that.
Actually, forget 'apparent lawbreaking'. Stuff like that has to be brought before the Senate Intelligence Committee or that is illegal.
I said they wouldn't be able to implement the changes they want, not that they wouldn't try.
No. You did not say that. Indeed, and on the contrary, you said they would be in power, which directly implies they couldn't be stopped from implementing it. You may have MEANT that, but you didn't express it well, and I misunderstood it.
Everyone else would stop them, and even if they succeeded, the changes would be undone when they were unceremoniously voted out of office the next election.
That "if" cannot logically be applied to your original statement, which said they would get nothing else done, not that they would get it done and then it would be repealed.
Paul is somewhat popular now, but if he were the nominee, he would be absolutely buried. Many Republicans would refuse to vote because of his stance on the war,
'Many'? How many is many?
At least 10 percent, perhaps 20 percent or more, of normal Republican voters, just based on his war view alone, but even more perhaps because of his general isolationist policies (which he and his supporters say -- perhaps correctly -- is not a proper representation of his actual views, but it is reasonable shorthand here, since we are talking about perceptions).
I don't know what polls you're reading, but being pro-war seems to seriously damage people in the polls.
Not among the Republican base -- which I am explicitly talking about -- no, it doesn't. Not in the slightest. You have it backward, in fact.
Among the people who are still calling themselves 'Republicans' and running the party, maybe not, but we're talking if he's hypothetically already won the nomination.
Yes, and? I am talking about Republican voters.
others because they are essentially big government Republicans.
About half of Republican voters favor universal health care, so I'll buy that.
That's not true. Only a tiny percentage of Republicans, and a significant minority -- yes, minority -- of everyone else wants universal health care. Oh sure, insipid polls that ask "if you could get something for free, or make sure others have something for free, would you take it?" have a majorirty saying yes. But when you ask them about specific plans, and do an actual cost-benefit analysis of how much it would cost to help how many people... the numbers drop significantly. Even moreso if you compare it to a market-based solution.
Universal health care is UNpopular. All the polls that claim otherwise are terribly flawed bullshit, because they ask people to respond out of ignorance.
And almost all of the non-libertarian independents would vote for the Democrat.
That's called 'learning your lesson with Nadar in 2000', he he.
Not really, no. It's all about Paul turning people off. It has nothing to do with Nader, who didn't get very many of the independents at all. He got a huge number of the independent VOTE -- the number of votes that didn't go to the top two parties -- of course, but a tiny percentage of actual independents who voted.
Maybe it is because Paul's views are largely unknown. I don't know how little known they are.
I suspect it's exactly the opposite, that he would be less popular if his views were.
He would be less popular if his views were well known? Um, that's is in line with what I said, not the opposite of anything I said. I am saying he will lose a huge number of Republican votes and all non-libertarian independents because of his views, because people in general do not want to see the evaporation of FEMA, the FDA, the FCC, and so on.
Because Paul's views are not very well known (Or no one believes he would actually do them), if he got the primary, he could actually win
Especially to people like you with your lock 'em up and deny 'em medical care mentality I never remotely thought or expressed any such thing. Either you are incompetent, or a liar. Or both, I suppose. Indeed, I was explicitly accepting the fact that they would get health care.
"The minimum that most minimalists want leaves in place just the institutions who protect their interests. That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves." I don't know who said that, but obviously it was someone who has no clue about libertarianism, which would utterly outlaw slavery in every form. More incompetence/ignorance.
There's only two options: either it was illegal because it required Congressional authorization, or it falls under Executive authority and was therefore legal. You didn't state a third option here (though you allude to it later): that it was illegal because it is not Constitutionally authorized. This is the argument that many people who are against the wiretapping make, actually. The limits and requirements within the wiretapping law are there because the law would be unconstitutional otherwise. That is not substantially different from the first option.
You can't have it both ways. If libertarians are so unpopular as you say, then they should change their views to get elected; if they do not, then clearly, they care more about their views than getting elected. I don't know why you think I, or anyone, is trying to have it 'both ways'. I'm not trying to have it any way at all. Yes, you are. You are presenting two arguments that are inconsistent with each other based on your own interpretation of the facts. You are arguing they are so unpopular they won't get into power, which necessarily implies they care more about their principles than being elected; and then you argue they would, if they got power, sacrifice those principles in order to be elected again. That's trying to have it both ways.
However, they've reached the point where they are less unpopular than the Bush-lites running for president. That's a total illusion. No Pauline libertarian would have nearly the chance of winning the Presidency as a "Bush-like" like, say, Huckabee or Giuliani. I wouldn't classify the other three potential frontrunners as very Bush-like, but regardless, every single one of them has a better chance of winning than any libertarian I've ever seen, simply based on what you said about the lack of popularity for their small government beliefs... beliefs I largely agree with (especially the part about getting rid of the patently unconstitutional Social Security).
Paul is somewhat popular now, but if he were the nominee, he would be absolutely buried. Many Republicans would refuse to vote because of his stance on the war, others because they are essentially big government Republicans. And almost all of the non-libertarian independents would vote for the Democrat. Maybe it is because Paul's views are largely unknown. I don't know how little known they are. I only know people care a lot more about maintaining our welfare state than they do about the war, despite what they say to pollsters.
In fact, that's exactly what I said. You wrote, "And that's all that would happen. If they were to touch social security, or welfare, or medicare, they'd be out on their asses next election, and those would come right back." So you are saying they have the power, but they will not do all those other things with that power. (That's what "that's all that would happen" means.)
Then I said all that actually would be within their power if they won the Presidency was massive deregulation of industry No, you said nothinig about the presidency. You talked about them being in power, which means being able to do whatever they wished, unless specified otherwise.
and possibly a lowering of taxes. Neither of which is even slightly a good idea idea right now. Both would be great ideas right now. Sure, ideally, we would not lower taxes and instead would pay down the debt, but if we won't do that, I'd rather lower taxes, absolutely.
And deregulation is almost always a good idea, and we need a lot more deregulation of power, of health care, and a lot more.
You can talk about 'executive authority' all you want, but that's completely irrelevant
False. You are saying they asked someone else to perform an illegal act, which is in itself illegal. Further, you are missing the point: if the Executive has the authority under the Constitution to conduct wiretaps without Congressional approval (or even against Congressional prohibition), then it is not illegal for a company to provide them the information or tools or other means toward that end.
What you have here in this scenario is an unconstitutional law from Congress (unconstitutional in this context, at least), for which no company can be held liable.
The law explicitly states under what circumstances they can wiretap: Either with a warrant, or the AG's signature asserting that certain conditions are true. Any other conditions, and they are in violation of the law. It doesn't matter if they've got the signature of God Himself.
Again, that's simply wrong. because of what I said above: if the Executive can do this wiretaps without Congressional approval (or against Congressional prohibition), then no company is prohibited from helping the Executive to that end. The law, in that context, is unconstitutional.
Also, again, the President could order it himself, if he wished, or delegate it to someone else, according to the Constitution. Congress has no right to assign a certain executive power to a subordinate of the President, because all executive power is vested in the President.
Even if it was entirely 100% legal for the president to walk into AT&T and wiretap people, or order the NSA to do so, there is an entirely different law that forbids the telecoms from actually participating in that
To interpret the Constitution this way (not referring to the specific context, but in the larger sense of holding people accountable for exercising a power the Executive has) gives Congress complete control over the Executive. Take my previous example, that Bush can commute Libby's sentence. What if Congress passed a law saying that no one could help Bush commute Libby's sentence? Sure, Bush would not be breaking the law by asking them to... but any lawyer would be breaking the law by helping him write up the papers! That's patently ridiculous.
Not about the money, but about him being "bought and paid for," yes. I know all about the money. But if you think his principles can be bought for that paltry sum, you're more myopic than I thought. Rockefeller simply wouldn't offer immunity if he thought it wasn't the right thing to do, period.
It's not immunity, please don't call it that. (Yes, I do it too, I'll try to stop.) Immunity is what you offer people in exchange for testimony. I actually wouldn't mind that so much.
Whatever. I was just using your word.:-)
What he's offering is amnesty. Where no one has to actually explain what is going on, no one has to explain how or why or even when. (There's evidence it started before 9/11, which would instantly render all the dumb AUMF justifications moot.) In fact, it's worse than amnesty, which would merely mean they couldn't be charged with the crime...it's retroactive legalization, which would also stop any lawsuits.
Actually, no... amnesty properly means what you are describing. Amnesty comes from the Greek word amnestia, which also comes into English as amnesia, and means, literally, to forget. So amnesty is intended to wipe the slate entirely clean. It's why Jimmy Carter refused to offer amnesty to draft dodgers, but granted them pardons instead. Sure, it was purely symbolic and most people didn't get, or care about, the difference, but there you have it.
It's also why people who say that the immigration proposals are not amnesty are correct. However, as words do change over time, it's also unfortunately become correct i
Have you ever heard the term accessory or accomplice (especially the ties the administration actually has to these companies)? What makes you think either term applies here? If, as some claim, they committed crimes, then that is not being an accomplice or accessory.
Or the fact YOU DO NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDERS? It is entirely unclear as to whether those "orders" were unconstitutional. Indeed, we have judges -- including the FISA Court of Appeals -- which brings into question whether Congress has the authority to restrict the President's surveillance powers in such cases, which could mean that it's Congress giving the President an unconstitutional order, by ordering the President to not conduct the surveillance.
Note 'They were seeking his signature because authority for the program was to expire the next day.' and 'It was unclear from his testimony what authority existed for the program while the changes were being made.'.
There was no authority.
That is an opinion, not fact. You are expressing the opinion -- assuming you know what you are talking about -- that the only authority could have come from Congress, which is what is precisely in question.
The program, even assuming it was legal with the AG's signature (Which is in fact, in doubt.), ceased being legal March 11, 2004
Nope. Absolutely false. That shows a dramatic lack of understanding about how executive authority works. If something is legal just because the AG signs a piece of paper, then it is legal just because the President tells someone to do it, too. The only authority the AG has comes from the President via the Constitution, and there is no requirement in the Constitution for how that authority is expressed: through a signature, through an executive order, through an offhanded remark at breakfast, through delegation to an inferior.
There's only two options: either it was illegal because it required Congressional authorization, or it falls under Executive authority and was therefore legal.
There's a difference between legal, and proper, however. It's generally considered improper to bypass the Attorney General, but if you're the President, it's perfectly legal. Read Article II again. The very first words. "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Not some of the power. All of it. That's what the definite article necessarily means.
Note that I am not making the argument that the AG's signature makes anything legal, or that Bush's saying so does so. I am just saying that the Constitution quite clearly and necessarily means that all executive authority belongs ultimately to the President, and that there is no formal mechanism for him to express that authority.
I have been saying since the wiretapping first became public that I am skeptical that the Executive actually has this authority. But that is the only question here.
And it doesn't matter what sort of authority the president has, or if he has the power to break the law. (Which he doesn't, incidentally.)
That is, of course, a straw man. No one is claiming the President can break the law. The question is twofold: whether this law is a Constitutional limit on the power of the executive, and whether the President has the legal authority to ignore that law if so. So if Congress passes a law that says the President is not allowed to commute Scooter Libby's sentence (over his veto, of course), is Bush breaking the law by then doing so? Perhaps, but he has every right to do so in my opinion, because Congress passed an unconstitutional law.
This is, of course, debatable. You could argue that the law is not unconstitutional (well, not in the Libby case, but in the wiretapping case certainly), and you could argue that even if it is, the President should be bound by it. The former case is far more convincing than the latter, but they are both debatable.
The immunity is because the telecoms certainly don't have any such power, and, moreover, do not actually work for the executive branch. There is no way to stretch presidential power to cover them.
I never said there was. You're confused. I didn't say the government COULD NOT prosecute them. I said it is foolish to hold them responsible. If I were going to make an executive power argument, I would say the government has no authority or right to prosecute, and I never implied any such thing.
Um, are you the government, the embodiment of law and order and authority? (Pssst: no! You're not!) I understand your argument, but it is wrong. Both of those phrases cannot be true.
No I am not the government. But the government is not the embodiment of law and order as you suggest. Yes, it is.
The military swears to the constitution, not the government. I await the completion of this argument!
Also read about what happened to Nazi's defense that they are personally not to blame because they were just following orders, all the way up the chain of command, towards the government. Also this one!
I know your views based on your post, dipshit. What do you think I'm responding to? Oh no, don't get me wrong. I know you are responding to me. The problem is that nothing I said was remotely fascist, so I am forced to conclude you're a complete idiot who probably goes around wearing a Che t-shirt, not realizing that if Che were around, you'd be the first one he'd kill.
Hint asshole: it isn't "anti-fascist" to want the government to aggressively protect your rights to abuse the minority. Correct. Which is why I am, in fact, anti-fascist, because I want the government to aggressively protect the rights of all minorities. Glad to see you agree with me.
Get it? It's fascism by definition. You are a fascist. Wait a minute. You said I was fascist, but then you agreed my view is not fascist, so now I am back to being a fascist again?
You're not very good at this!
Buy a dictionary. Have a bunch, thanks. Want to borrow one of them?
Better yet, come to get me like your Nazi ancestor's did. I have a surprise for you waiting for you. Warm cocoa?
But that is not libertarianism. Ah, yes, libertarianism, the communism of the right. Yeah, libertarianism is stupid. Fuck freedom!
What will actually happen were they elected? Not important. How is it any worse than what anyone else will do?
The fact their movement is being operated by rich people who have the entirely different motive of not paying taxes, instead of any sort of 'freedom'? Not important. Also? Not true. Not even remotely. Did you pull that put of your own ass, or did it come from someone else's ass before it came out your lips?
The fact that American doesn't actually like their ideas Yeah. Americans fucking HATE the Constitution! You're so RIGHT!
and that existing social nets int his country have approximately an 80% approval rating? Yeah! Fuck freedom and the Constitution! Democracy rules, even if the Constitution is violated! (Funny how you care so deeply about the Fourth Amendment, but not about the Tenth. Why is that?)
Not important. Also, not true.
I. Don't. Give. A. Flying. Fuck. about some hypothetical ideal libertarian society Yeah! Don't give a flying fuck about the Constitution! What did it ever do for you?!
I care what would actually happen were libertarians in power in this country enough to affect things, right now. Politics operates in the real world.
What would actually happen is that regulations and taxes would be loosened on large corporations...and that's it.
False.
Maybe taxes would be reduced somewhat on normal people, too, which would be damn stupid with our huge debt.
And that's all that would happen. If they were to touch social security, or welfare, or medicare, they'd be out on their asses next election, and those would come right back.
You can't have it both ways. If libertarians are so unpopular as you say, then they should change their views to get elected; if they do not, then clearly, they care more about their views than getting elected.
So if libertarians actually had power, no, they would do what they say they would do, what was within their power, according to any honest interpretation of your own words.
First of all, it is extremely questionable whether any law was broken. It's not the least bit questionable, at all. False.
Asserting it is does not make it so. Back at you.
We know for a fact the telecoms continued to wiretap without AG authorization for several months in 2004, which is, you know, illegal. Actually, no. There is a significant dispute over whether those things are illegal. Yes, there is a law on the books about it, but no, we don't know for certain whether those laws violate the Constitutional grant of authority to the executive.
I'm not even going to bother with this topic anymore, as you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Back at you.
You really don't even slightly know what's going on, do you? Back at you.
And Jay Rockefeller just got $25,000 dollars worth of donations from Verizon employees and $20,000 from AT&T this year, up from about $100 from each in 2006. He's bought and paid for. False.
You would be the classic fascist. Well, no. Indeed, my views are antithetical to fascism. You either do not know my views, or do not know what fascism is. Hint: it is anti-fascist to want the government to aggressively protect our rights, and to do nothing to take away anyone's rights except in the course of protecting rights.
So really your opinion is not important. Well, sure. But no less so than yours. Indeed, mine matters a hell of a lot more than yours.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not. That is not a power of the federal government at all, it is a preamble of the enumerated powers to follow. So which actual power of Congress are you referring to?
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
That's not a 'preamble'. It's the first statement of the powers of Congress. They can collect money to spend on providing for the common defence and general welfare.
Yes, the collecting money is an enumerated power for "the common defence and general welfare" is an enumerated power. However, "the common defence and general welfare" is not broad, but specifically defined by the following powers. The phrase "the common defence and general welfare" is a preamble to what follows. So spending money on "the general welfare" is not an enumerated power: spending money on post roads is an enumerated power.
James Madison wrote much about this.
I never implied he did. I simply stated the fact that he defends the country. He does it within, to some degree, the rules provided by the Congress. But the Congress is not doing the actual defense, and has no power to do so. They only have the power to provide for it in various enumerated and implied ways, and then the President has the power to actually do it.
Yes, he does. He directs all federal law enforcement, including the FBI, border patrol, ATF, and so on.
The president actually runs everything. Are you arguing that he has the right to operate the Post Office (Another Congressional power) however he wants because it's in the executive?
No. Why would you think I meant that? I never implied anything of the sort.
The 'national security' claim is the same thing.
I made no such claim.
Any powers he has there have been granted him by legislation, and thus can be removed or restricted by more legislation.
Sure. I never said anything different.
Legislation like, oh, FISA.
Yes, and?
Have you any example at all, other than the existence of liability waivers?
Here is the law granting immunity, and exceptions to immunity, under US tort law. Only 'Federal Agencies' and people working under them have immunity. This 'does not include any contractor with the United States.'
So, no, you do not.
False. You are ignoring the fact that you DO NOT KNOW the details of this program. They never said that it was "solely a wiretapping program." Where did you get that from?
You know, this is the stupidest defense of this program ever.
Translation: "you came up with an argument I can't argue against, so NOW I AM MAD!"
The only thing anyone has ever asserted, and I include executive branch officials who were before Congress, is that this is 'wiretapping' and 'surveillance'.
Yes.
And?
If it is a classified program (which it still is), then why would you expect them to offer additional details?
Gonzales liked to assert, sometimes, that it was more than one program, or maybe there's another actual program in there somewhere
It was no mere assertion, it was fact. And it's beside the point. What he was talking about was the fact that the original program they infamously tried to get Ashcroft to sign off on is a different program than what was actually implemented and became news a couple of years ago.
but there is a wiretapping program
Correct.
and that is wh
Again, I tend to agree with your sentiment, and have said so for years now, and I think the Court of Review here was wrong. But there's a lot of disagreement on the subject, and the Constitution is not "abundantly clear" on it.
I knew eventually we'd get to Ronald Reagan. I agree with you completely, except WRT the Republican party from Reagan to Bush. You think they were 'small government', I do not.
That is when the shift (back) began, with Reagan, and it was the cornerstone of the 1994 revolution.
(And pretending the Republican party at the turn of the century has anything to do with the current one is silly.)
Oh stop it. I can just as easily, then, say that the Republican party in 1954 has nothing to do with the one today.
Anyway, 'small-government' Reagan started a massive arms race with the Soviet Union.
You do not understand small-government conservatism. Small-government is at least as much about the size of the SCOPE as actual size: limiting the government to what it should be involved in. Clearly, military and national defense is one of those things. The question is not, to a small-government conservative, how big the military should be, because the question is obvious: as big as is necessary (and clearly, Reagan was correct on that). The question is about WHAT the government should be involved with in the first place.
He quadrupled the debt.
Yes, but his budgets, if implemented as submitted, would have resulted in a balanced budget by the end of his term. It's Democrats who increased spending. Funny how Reagan critics like to ignore that little fact.
No, the theory of conservatives has been that since the 50s, although not as far as the Libertarians take it. ... The actual party didn't start the small government rhetoric until Reagan ...
You are conflating, and therefore incorrect. I was addressing your incorrect definition of "conservative," which is separate from the Republican party.
... ?
And you are quite wrong about the party, as well. You've apparently never heard of Barry Goldwater
The Republican party 100 years ago (Well, 110 years ago, really.) may have been mostly liberals as opposed to the progressives on the other side, and been against most spending, but classic liberalism, and anti-progressivism, isn't the same as conservativism or libertarianism.
Shrug. I don't know where you get that. Calvin Coolidge is most remembered as being pro-business (which, of course, is the same as today's conservatives), but he was also what we would today call a "true conservative." It was he who said, "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration has been minding my own business." And: "Government cannot relieve from toil. The normal must take care of themselves. Self-government means self-support.... Ultimately property rights and personal rights are the same thing."
Coolidge spoke often of morality and the importance of religion and faith, of elimination of debt, of creating wealth rather than redistributing it, of limited government.
We could go back a little further. Taft said, "The world is not going to be saved by legislation." And: "Next to the right of liberty, the right of property is the most important individual right guaranteed by the Constitution and the one which, united with that of personal liberty, has contributed more to the growth of civilization than any other institution established by the human race." And: "No tendency is quite so strong in human nature as the desire to lay down rules of conduct for other people." And: "Socialism proposes no adequate substitute for the motive of enlightened selfishness that to-day is at the basis of all human labor and effort, enterprise and new activity."
I don't know where you get this idea that conservatism in the GOP has changed much in the last 100 years. It hasn't.
... I'm not entirely sure where you're getting the Republicans were 'small government' before the progressive realignment in the 00s.
You're not sure where I am
The 'party' you're talking about is the libertarian wing, which is about 10% of the Republican party, and combined with the actual Libertarian Party, composes at most 15% of the active voters in this country, probably close to half that.
Not at all, in fact. It is the primary basis for the modern Republican party.
That's not a recipe to just lose elections, that's a recipe to lose them so badly you lose ballot access!
Nope. The reason the GOP won in 1994 was because of its small government platform, and the biggest reason it has lost is because it abandoned that platform.
Just FYI
FYI, I know far more about the GOP than you do.
that's not actually the traditional Republican party
It depends on how you look at it. It's not the GOP of the 60s and 70s, no, but it is the GOP of the 80s and 90s, and the GOP of 100 years ago, too. It's why TR broke off from the GOP for the 1912 election (and why Taft lost to Wilson ... the one big mistake TR made).
... until the war, of course). Go ahead and look at the criticism Lincoln endured from the "social conservatives" (at the time, liberals) who want to abolish slavery right away.
Granted, the roots of the GOP lie in social liberalism: fighting for abolitionism, prohibition, suffrage. But all this (excepting prohibitionism, of course) also went hand-in-hand with a strong belief in individual liberty and keeping the government out of the way. There's always been a tension in the GOP between the libertarian-conservative and social-conservative elements, back to the very beginning (which again, you can see even in Lincoln himself: against slavery, but not willing to force states to give it up
or traditional conservative principles
Wow. Um. I have no idea what definition of "conservative principles" you are using, but no, conservatism in this country since the 50s has been marked by precisely what I was referring to. See the fathers of modern conservatism like WFB and Milton Friedman. What I am expressing IS conservatism, as popularly understood, and as conservatives (other than "social conservatives," although there is a lot of overlap) self-identify. Conservatism and libertarianism are practically indistinguishable, which is why WFB called himself both for many years. It's why in WA, most Republicans agreed with what the liberartarian Senate candidate said in the debates.
You're trying to steer the party a certain way, the party didn't 'abandon' that position, it never held it
Not in whole, sure. No party is pure throughout. But the conservative part of the GOP dominated the party through the second half of the 80s and through the 90s, specifically repudiating the (relative) liberalism of Eisenhower and Nixon. And again, abandoning that is why the GOP has lost Republican voters. You say you know about the GOP, but everyone around the GOP -- including those voters who have left the party -- agree that the GOP's main problem is abandoning Republican principles of small and limited government, property rights, and so on.
Case in point: when the GOP swept into power in 1994, it did the same thing here in WA. Over the next few years, the GOP lost its grasp on the legislature here. The two wings of the GOP -- social conservatives, and business conservatives (again, a lot of overlap) -- first supported the business conservative interests. But when it came time to support social conservatism, the business conservatives balked, thinking it would lose them elections. So in order to remain in power, having created a rift with the social conservatives, they believed they needed to support some big-government plans so they could bring in some moderate Democrats.
Because of this, over time -- and not over a long time, just 10 years, as they lost their last hold on power in 2004 -- many Republican voters stopped voting. Some stopped because of social
I don't know what happened to you guys and your party. I think you were relying on demagogues too long, you ceded too much power to Limbaughes and gratefully accepted anyone who showed up to 'fight the liberals', and then, when the head of the party turned to lunacy, those people went gleefully along, as all the sane Republicans stood around in shock and dropped out one by one.
The people who are most angry about the direction of the party are in large part the people who still listen to Limbaugh. It's got absolutely nothing to do with that. It's all about the tactics of selecting candidates themselves, which is largely about ABANDONING our principles, not being "demagogues" on them. Whoever was the most "electable" against Democrats would be picked, which is a code word for "liberal on certain issues."
For example, Bush is a liberal on many things. Just see his Medicare prescription drug plan and No Child Left Behind. We've accepted these candidates and programs, as a party, because we thought we needed to do that in order to win election. THIS is what has crippled the party.
And frankly, what most people think of as the "sane" Republicans are the biggest part of the problem. These are the liberal and moderate Republicans who pretend the Tenth Amendment doesn't exist, and who think compromising on fundamental principles on a regular basis is just fine thank you, and who cares about the conservative base if you can win the independent moderates? This is a recipe for destruction of any party.
The torture thing is a bullshit issue. Who is in favor of torture? Barely anyone. The Dems are trying to make an issue where it isn't. Sens. McCain and Graham got together with Bush and the Democrats and passed the MCA last year. They all AGREED on torture: we won't do it. If there's a practice being done that you think is torture, fine, then have Congress categorize it as such. That's how it should work, and if the Dems felt so strongly about it, why aren't they trying to categorize more things as torture? Either because they know they aren't being done and so there'd be no opposition and they'd lose the issue, or because they actually believe the procedure isn't wrong and don't want it to be taken away.
I honestly don't know if you're going to be able to get your party back.
It's already happening. We are returning to princple.
But I think you're wrong. Single-payer universal health care will work
No, it won't.
and it will be cheaper than the existing system
No, it won't.
(As evidenced by the fact that we pay more, per capita, than any country with it.)
That's an illusion. We pay more out of pocket, yes, but that is with price controls and other restrictions on private business that hurts the economy, contributing to overall depression in wages and employment rates. Plus, as you likely know, Americans get a lot more and better health care for their health care dollars than almost all the other countries, so it's comparing apples and oranges.
And, of course, economic cost is not all that matters: liberty matters even more. Enough said.
Finally, even if you were right, the statement woulud be irrelevant, because you are only comparing single-payer to our current system, which NO ONE supports. It's not single-payer versus what we have now, it is single-payer versus a true market-based solution that we don't currently have. So I won't even address most of the rest of what you say, because it falsely assumes that the alternative to single-payer (or more socialization, more government control) is the status quo. I am not defending the status quo, and neither is anyone else.
What really pisses me off though is that single-payer plans don't address the real problem directly, which is the cost of health care. Hillary's plan (which is not single-payer, granted, but it is based on similar principles) would do nothing to actually decrease costs.
It's a nonsensical comparison. His oath of office includes respecting his oath of secrecy. There may be some cases where violating that oath of secrecy is warranted, but this is clearly not one of them, for multiple reasons: first because that oath of secrecy is much more important than this one issue, and second because he had other means at his disposal than violating that oath. He could have put a hold on it, he could have tried to stop funding, he could have done many things he chose to not do. You realize at this point we're not disagreeing, right? Except in the part where you stated he should have risked past, future, and present security of the nation by not respecting his oath to secrecy. Allowing the executive branch to invent areas of secrecy is a terrible precedent. OK. Good thing that never happened, then, huh? No, that's mistaken. See 50 USC 413b(c)(2). That applies to covert actions:
[...]
In other words, covert actions, at least in this section, are black-ops, not spying. That's a matter of interpretation, of course, since we don't know much about the program. So you can't claim with any real certainty that it doesn't apply.
What's more, the Gang of Eight had the authority to then overrule the President and tell their respective committees if he didn't comply with their interpretation of the law, given the specifics of the program. Not a single one of them raised that objection at the time of the program (not even Rockefeller), nor when it was revealed in public, that I recall (and I listened to many of them explain their view on the matter). And it's rather hard to argue that wiretapping is for something other than acquiring intelligence. It's really hard to see how you can know enough about the program to make that judgment.
And I am saying prison inmates is a similarly poor use, and that it should be a disqualification. Yes. And since putting them to the bottom of the organ donor list is not "denying 'em medical care" -- or even denying them organs, just making them wait longer -- you therefore admit you are a liar, right? Even if you do maintain that putting someone to the end of the organ donor list is "denying" them that particular medical procedure, it certainly does not support your lie that I want to deny them all medicare are.
But hey, if you DO come up with any quote of mine that even remotely shows me to be in favor of denying health care to prison inmates, feel free to share. Anyway, yes, because we all know that everybody in prison is a criminal. Red herring. But at least it is not another lie! You're improving!
The Republican base isn't going to vote for a Democrat, period. They'll hold their noise and vote for Ron Paul if he win the nomination.
Um, there's a third option. We saw it in 2006: they stay home. Many Republicans will not vote for Ron Paul.
Meanwhile, many of the Republican who left the GOP thanks to the war will be back if any Republican shows up who's anti-war and anti-general-Bush-stupidity.
Nope. Generally speaking, the former Republicans who left because of the war won't vote for Paul. The only former Republicans who left and would vote for Paul are those who left long before the war anyway. Those are among the libertarian independents.
Ron Paul is somehow in the 'center right' of the American people.
Not if he wins the nomination, he won't be. In fact, he is extreme right, and that would come out.
he's far enough 'left' (If by left we mean 'anti-war') that the center (Which is entirely anti-war) would vote for him.
No, he is not. He is not, in any way at all, "left." There is no issue on which he is "left." (And no, anti-Iraq-war is not "left." Ask that socialist/communist Pat Buchanan.)
That's not true. Only a tiny percentage of Republicans, and a significant minority -- yes, minority -- of everyone else wants universal health care. Oh sure, insipid polls that ask "if you could get something for free, or make sure others have something for free, would you take it?" have a majority saying yes. But when you ask them about specific plans, and do an actual cost-benefit analysis of how much it would cost to help how many people ... the numbers drop significantly. Even moreso if you compare it to a market-based solution.
Republican consultant Tony Fabrizio took a poll (Sorry, PDF) in June this year. Look on Page 51. 51% think universal health care should be a guaranteed right, and only 43% think otherwise. (And 'it should be a guaranteed right' is a bit more extreme than simply saying 'It should exist right now.'.)
Yes, and that poll is complete nonsense, because it doesn't ask the question in any context. It's a completely useless poll. It's fantasy. It in no way predicts how people will react to actual universal health care plans.
Now granted, I fully accept -- indeed, it is a point I made in regard to Paul -- that people are not philosophically oppposed to universal health care, as they logically should be if they care about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the principles upon which they are based. But they will be, in an overwhelming majority, opposed to any actual plan that tries to offer it, for practical reasons (although what they don't realize is that the philosophical objections are based on the inevitable practical realities), which is why not even Hillary Clinton or John Edwards are proposing to do it.
Oh, sorry. I think people don't want those things to happen, but it's entirely possible they don't know they don't want those things to happen.
Oh, they do. All Hillary would have to do, the day after Paul wins the nomination, is trot out some kids who got sick because of Chinese products, and then quote Ron Paul saying he wants to abolish the FDA and FTC and so on. The election would be over on Day One.
the other GOP front-runners are unelectable because of the war
Nope.
if Paul can attach the war to the Democrats neck (Like Clinton's.), he could still pull through.
There is simply not even a remote chance of that ever happening. Period. The only way he could win is if there was a huge scandal about Hillary. Like, she's a space alien. Something probably a lot bigger than that rumor about being a lesbian. Paul has no chance to win, at all.
Nope
In the case of the wiretapping in question, the executive branch very clearly didn't have congressional authorization because it violated provisions of the law that congress had passed. Sure. The question is whether that congressional authorization was necessary. But even if Congress had passed a law allowing the executive branch to conduct warrantless wiretapping directly against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, that congressional authorization would be worthless, because it exceeds (for the very same reasons those who argue the unconstitutionality of the wiretapping in question use) the power granted to both congress and the executive branch by the Constitution. But for practical purposes here, that's a distinction without a difference. If that's the case, then surely the President couldn't be blamed by Congress for exercising authority granted to him by Congress, and since only Congress can hold him accountable, then that's, practically speaking, irrelevant. Similarly, if Congress does not give him authorization, but it is unconstitutional, then it doesn't really matter whether the President is violating the Constitution by ignoring the authority of Congress, or violating the Constitution by ignoring the Fourth Amendment. If the Constitution doesn't grant a power, then neither the executive branch nor congress have the legal justification to authorize a third party (the telcos, in this specific case) to act based on that power, which means the actions of the third party cannot be excused as a result of acting on behalf of the government (instead of on its own) -- said third party is therefore in that case subject to the standard laws of the land, as if the government was not involved at all. I don't buy it. If you have reasonable belief that the President is exercising a lawful authority, it's not reasonable to say that you've done anything wrong by acting on that, where the Constitutional law is so terribly unclear.
Now, if the Court came down and gave its opinion and THEN the telcos continued to do what the President asked, that would be different. But we're not talking statutes here, we are talking about a very controversial area of Constitutional law, and since we cannot just as the Supreme Court to give us their opinion, we have to make our own best guesses. And if the Supreme Court tells us later that we're wrong, fine, we move forward from there.
What if Congress passed a law saying that no one could help Bush commute Libby's sentence? Sure, Bush would not be breaking the law by asking them to ... but any lawyer would be breaking the law by helping him write up the papers! That's patently ridiculous.
Um, actually, Congress has done exactly things like that, although usually attached to funding. Stating that the President can't use any government resources to do X.
No, they haven't. You are changing the scenario to be something other than what I said.
If we assume the president has the power to do these wiretaps, then, yes, he can ask companies to do them, and they couldn't be charged with anything.
However, that wouldn't remove any civil liability the companies incurred, thanks to laws. The law says you can sue them for a certain amount of damages if they wiretap without X's signature, and they wiretapped without X's signature, you can sue them.
And IF the President has the power to do them, then it's bullshit that anyone should be sued for helping the President exercise his legal authority. No dice.
(And, just so we're both clear, neither of actually thinks the president has constitutional authority to order wiretaps on American citizens
Correct, however, unlike you, I recognize that this is an open legal question. If I had to make the legal decision, I'd say he doesn't have that authority. And I don't see where it would come from. But many people smarter than either of us, including people who sit on the FISA Court of Review, disagree with us. So while I think he doesn't have that authority, I recognize it is incorrect to state as a matter of fact that it violates "the law" (unless you specifically mean FISA itself, which is being violated, but has no force of law if it contradicts the Constitution).
But under no circumstances could he have, or would we have, revealed it to a closed session of Congress, which would be an absolute violation of his oath to secrecy. It's not about punishment: he actually takes that oath seriously, knowing that reverernce for the oath itself is far more important than any one issue he may wish were not covered by it.
His oath of secrecy? WTF? How about his oath of office?
His oath of office includes respecting his oath of secrecy. There may be some cases where violating that oath of secrecy is warranted, but this is clearly not one of them, for multiple reasons: first because that oath of secrecy is much more important than this one issue, and second because he had other means at his disposal than violating that oath. He could have put a hold on it, he could have tried to stop funding, he could have done many things he chose to not do.
He learned about apparent lawbreaking and possible unconstitutional behavior, done in secret, by the executive branch and he thought a useful solution to that was to write a letter?
Again, "apparent." He couldn't say it was illegal. (And frankly, I get pissed off whenever people like you mention unconstitutionality as though it is some extremely terrible thing, while at the same time ignoring the Tenth Amendment, which matters to me just as much as the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments [to name but a few].)
You don't go violating your oath and risking national security not just for today, but for the future by setting a terrible precedent, because you think something might be illegal. Anyone who thinks like you apparently do on this issue is unfit to have such security clearance. Thankfully, none of the top Democrats think like that.
Actually, forget 'apparent lawbreaking'. Stuff like that has to be brought before the Senate Intelligence Committee or that is illegal.
No, that's mistaken. See 50 USC 413b(c)(2).
I said they wouldn't be able to implement the changes they want, not that they wouldn't try.
No. You did not say that. Indeed, and on the contrary, you said they would be in power, which directly implies they couldn't be stopped from implementing it. You may have MEANT that, but you didn't express it well, and I misunderstood it.
Everyone else would stop them, and even if they succeeded, the changes would be undone when they were unceremoniously voted out of office the next election.
That "if" cannot logically be applied to your original statement, which said they would get nothing else done, not that they would get it done and then it would be repealed.
Paul is somewhat popular now, but if he were the nominee, he would be absolutely buried. Many Republicans would refuse to vote because of his stance on the war,
'Many'? How many is many?
At least 10 percent, perhaps 20 percent or more, of normal Republican voters, just based on his war view alone, but even more perhaps because of his general isolationist policies (which he and his supporters say -- perhaps correctly -- is not a proper representation of his actual views, but it is reasonable shorthand here, since we are talking about perceptions).
I don't know what polls you're reading, but being pro-war seems to seriously damage people in the polls.
Not among the Republican base -- which I am explicitly talking about -- no, it doesn't. Not in the slightest. You have it backward, in fact.
Among the people who are still calling themselves 'Republicans' and running the party, maybe not, but we're talking if he's hypothetically already won the nomination.
Yes, and? I am talking about Republican voters.
others because they are essentially big government Republicans.
About half of Republican voters favor universal health care, so I'll buy that.
That's not true. Only a tiny percentage of Republicans, and a significant minority -- yes, minority -- of everyone else wants universal health care. Oh sure, insipid polls that ask "if you could get something for free, or make sure others have something for free, would you take it?" have a majorirty saying yes. But when you ask them about specific plans, and do an actual cost-benefit analysis of how much it would cost to help how many people ... the numbers drop significantly. Even moreso if you compare it to a market-based solution.
Universal health care is UNpopular. All the polls that claim otherwise are terribly flawed bullshit, because they ask people to respond out of ignorance.
And almost all of the non-libertarian independents would vote for the Democrat.
That's called 'learning your lesson with Nadar in 2000', he he.
Not really, no. It's all about Paul turning people off. It has nothing to do with Nader, who didn't get very many of the independents at all. He got a huge number of the independent VOTE -- the number of votes that didn't go to the top two parties -- of course, but a tiny percentage of actual independents who voted.
Maybe it is because Paul's views are largely unknown. I don't know how little known they are.
I suspect it's exactly the opposite, that he would be less popular if his views were.
He would be less popular if his views were well known? Um, that's is in line with what I said, not the opposite of anything I said. I am saying he will lose a huge number of Republican votes and all non-libertarian independents because of his views, because people in general do not want to see the evaporation of FEMA, the FDA, the FCC, and so on.
Because Paul's views are not very well known (Or no one believes he would actually do them), if he got the primary, he could actually win
But as you said, that's stupid to talk about,
Paul is somewhat popular now, but if he were the nominee, he would be absolutely buried. Many Republicans would refuse to vote because of his stance on the war, others because they are essentially big government Republicans. And almost all of the non-libertarian independents would vote for the Democrat. Maybe it is because Paul's views are largely unknown. I don't know how little known they are. I only know people care a lot more about maintaining our welfare state than they do about the war, despite what they say to pollsters. In fact, that's exactly what I said. You wrote, "And that's all that would happen. If they were to touch social security, or welfare, or medicare, they'd be out on their asses next election, and those would come right back." So you are saying they have the power, but they will not do all those other things with that power. (That's what "that's all that would happen" means.) Then I said all that actually would be within their power if they won the Presidency was massive deregulation of industry No, you said nothinig about the presidency. You talked about them being in power, which means being able to do whatever they wished, unless specified otherwise. and possibly a lowering of taxes. Neither of which is even slightly a good idea idea right now. Both would be great ideas right now. Sure, ideally, we would not lower taxes and instead would pay down the debt, but if we won't do that, I'd rather lower taxes, absolutely.
And deregulation is almost always a good idea, and we need a lot more deregulation of power, of health care, and a lot more.
You can talk about 'executive authority' all you want, but that's completely irrelevant
False. You are saying they asked someone else to perform an illegal act, which is in itself illegal. Further, you are missing the point: if the Executive has the authority under the Constitution to conduct wiretaps without Congressional approval (or even against Congressional prohibition), then it is not illegal for a company to provide them the information or tools or other means toward that end.
What you have here in this scenario is an unconstitutional law from Congress (unconstitutional in this context, at least), for which no company can be held liable.
The law explicitly states under what circumstances they can wiretap: Either with a warrant, or the AG's signature asserting that certain conditions are true. Any other conditions, and they are in violation of the law. It doesn't matter if they've got the signature of God Himself.
Again, that's simply wrong. because of what I said above: if the Executive can do this wiretaps without Congressional approval (or against Congressional prohibition), then no company is prohibited from helping the Executive to that end. The law, in that context, is unconstitutional.
Also, again, the President could order it himself, if he wished, or delegate it to someone else, according to the Constitution. Congress has no right to assign a certain executive power to a subordinate of the President, because all executive power is vested in the President.
Even if it was entirely 100% legal for the president to walk into AT&T and wiretap people, or order the NSA to do so, there is an entirely different law that forbids the telecoms from actually participating in that
To interpret the Constitution this way (not referring to the specific context, but in the larger sense of holding people accountable for exercising a power the Executive has) gives Congress complete control over the Executive. Take my previous example, that Bush can commute Libby's sentence. What if Congress passed a law saying that no one could help Bush commute Libby's sentence? Sure, Bush would not be breaking the law by asking them to ... but any lawyer would be breaking the law by helping him write up the papers! That's patently ridiculous.
Not about the money, but about him being "bought and paid for," yes. I know all about the money. But if you think his principles can be bought for that paltry sum, you're more myopic than I thought. Rockefeller simply wouldn't offer immunity if he thought it wasn't the right thing to do, period.
It's not immunity, please don't call it that. (Yes, I do it too, I'll try to stop.) Immunity is what you offer people in exchange for testimony. I actually wouldn't mind that so much.
Whatever. I was just using your word. :-)
What he's offering is amnesty. Where no one has to actually explain what is going on, no one has to explain how or why or even when. (There's evidence it started before 9/11, which would instantly render all the dumb AUMF justifications moot.) In fact, it's worse than amnesty, which would merely mean they couldn't be charged with the crime...it's retroactive legalization, which would also stop any lawsuits.
Actually, no ... amnesty properly means what you are describing. Amnesty comes from the Greek word amnestia, which also comes into English as amnesia, and means, literally, to forget. So amnesty is intended to wipe the slate entirely clean. It's why Jimmy Carter refused to offer amnesty to draft dodgers, but granted them pardons instead. Sure, it was purely symbolic and most people didn't get, or care about, the difference, but there you have it.
It's also why people who say that the immigration proposals are not amnesty are correct. However, as words do change over time, it's also unfortunately become correct i
First of all, it is extremely questionable whether any law was broken.
Read
I already know the story quite well.
Note 'They were seeking his signature because authority for the program was to expire the next day.' and 'It was unclear from his testimony what authority existed for the program while the changes were being made.'.
There was no authority.
That is an opinion, not fact. You are expressing the opinion -- assuming you know what you are talking about -- that the only authority could have come from Congress, which is what is precisely in question.
The program, even assuming it was legal with the AG's signature (Which is in fact, in doubt.), ceased being legal March 11, 2004
Nope. Absolutely false. That shows a dramatic lack of understanding about how executive authority works. If something is legal just because the AG signs a piece of paper, then it is legal just because the President tells someone to do it, too. The only authority the AG has comes from the President via the Constitution, and there is no requirement in the Constitution for how that authority is expressed: through a signature, through an executive order, through an offhanded remark at breakfast, through delegation to an inferior.
There's only two options: either it was illegal because it required Congressional authorization, or it falls under Executive authority and was therefore legal.
There's a difference between legal, and proper, however. It's generally considered improper to bypass the Attorney General, but if you're the President, it's perfectly legal. Read Article II again. The very first words. "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Not some of the power. All of it. That's what the definite article necessarily means.
Note that I am not making the argument that the AG's signature makes anything legal, or that Bush's saying so does so. I am just saying that the Constitution quite clearly and necessarily means that all executive authority belongs ultimately to the President, and that there is no formal mechanism for him to express that authority.
I have been saying since the wiretapping first became public that I am skeptical that the Executive actually has this authority. But that is the only question here.
And it doesn't matter what sort of authority the president has, or if he has the power to break the law. (Which he doesn't, incidentally.)
That is, of course, a straw man. No one is claiming the President can break the law. The question is twofold: whether this law is a Constitutional limit on the power of the executive, and whether the President has the legal authority to ignore that law if so. So if Congress passes a law that says the President is not allowed to commute Scooter Libby's sentence (over his veto, of course), is Bush breaking the law by then doing so? Perhaps, but he has every right to do so in my opinion, because Congress passed an unconstitutional law.
This is, of course, debatable. You could argue that the law is not unconstitutional (well, not in the Libby case, but in the wiretapping case certainly), and you could argue that even if it is, the President should be bound by it. The former case is far more convincing than the latter, but they are both debatable.
The immunity is because the telecoms certainly don't have any such power, and, moreover, do not actually work for the executive branch. There is no way to stretch presidential power to cover them.
I never said there was. You're confused. I didn't say the government COULD NOT prosecute them. I said it is foolish to hold them responsible. If I were going to make an executive power argument, I would say the government has no authority or right to prosecute, and I never implied any such thing.
Perhaps, but stored procedures have their own set of problems.
:D
The best security model would be requiring writing everything in assembly, and then not having any developers to risk our security.
You're not very good at this! Buy a dictionary. Have a bunch, thanks. Want to borrow one of them? Better yet, come to get me like your Nazi ancestor's did. I have a surprise for you waiting for you. Warm cocoa?
False. Maybe taxes would be reduced somewhat on normal people, too, which would be damn stupid with our huge debt.What would actually happen is that regulations and taxes would be loosened on large corporations...and that's it.
You can't have it both ways. If libertarians are so unpopular as you say, then they should change their views to get elected; if they do not, then clearly, they care more about their views than getting elected.And that's all that would happen. If they were to touch social security, or welfare, or medicare, they'd be out on their asses next election, and those would come right back.
So if libertarians actually had power, no, they would do what they say they would do, what was within their power, according to any honest interpretation of your own words.