Censure Resolution

[GG]

Thanks, I plan to read the CRS report and I read your comments.  Still not sure how FISA even as ruled by SCOTUS justifies WH actions.  I still suspect they are hiding behind the executive priviledge exception as a way to avoid exposing illegal domestic surveillance.  If it goes to court and there is any kind of discovery it will prove embarrassing.

 

Sooner or later some techno geek is going find a way to trace their activities.

628115[/snapback]

 

This is where I don't buy this argument. The admin was free to use FISA and had used it for routine spying operations. Chances are, the vanilla variety spying that everyone is worried about is being done under FISA as we speak. (Smile, you're on Candid Internet)

 

The NSA spying is something different that the admin felt it didn't need to, or could go through FISA. But, they knew the sensitive nature of the investigations that they kept the top FISA judge & Hill intelligence heads informed. Plus, Bush personally signed off on the program on a regular basis.

 

Thus, do you honestly believe that given the scrutiny and the high level authorizations, they would use NSA to snoop on Kerry's & Teresa Heinz' private moments?

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

This is where I don't buy this argument.  The admin was free to use FISA and had used it for routine spying operations.  Chances are, the vanilla variety spying that everyone is worried about is being done under FISA as we speak. (Smile, you're on Candid Internet)

 

The NSA spying is something different that the admin felt it didn't need to, or could go through FISA.  But, they knew the sensitive nature of the investigations that they kept the top FISA judge & Hill intelligence heads informed.  Plus, Bush personally signed off on the program on a regular basis.

 

Thus, do you honestly believe that given the scrutiny and the high level authorizations, they would use NSA to snoop on Kerry's & Teresa Heinz' private moments?

628128[/snapback]

Normally, not in their right mind, but I really am not sure...the power hungry nature of these folks...just not sure...although don't think they needed that much info to figure Kerrey out, just worry about other areas. Still not sure that I understand why applying FISA was such a problem and until I understand that better, I don't trust this crowd.

[Mickey]

That's actually one of the more sensible things I've heard out of anyone yet.

 

I'm guessing here, but I suspect that there are some technological things going on that make the law as it stands difficult to comply with. What is wrong with adjusting the laws to fit the capabilities?

628030[/snapback]

Nothing wrong with that, too bad they didn't ask for that before they went out and broke the law. I don't get that "I'd prefer to blah,blah,blah" stuff. As if we can't do both, fix any problems in the law and censure Bush for breaking it.

 

Besides, just why they broke the law, whether there were technical problems or what, we do not know. There has been no investigation to determine that and the administration has offered up excuses du jour for months now. I am not taking anything, anything the Schiavo-WMD troop say on faith.

 

Lieberman pretty much says he thinks they broke the law when he says he doesn't agree with the administration's "legal judgement" but at the same time, he doesn't want censure, he just wants to fix the law. That is classic politician double talk, taking both sides at once to please all of his constituents. He is against breaking the law and against disciplining the law breaker. He is thinks the law was broken but he doesn't want to declare, through censure, that it was broken.

 

It is amusing to watch a man tap-dance with his tongue.

[Mickey]

Explain to me how FISA is unconstitutional?

628065[/snapback]

It is the same argument over and over. They confuse "inherent authority" with "plenary power" or "absolute power" or "unrestrainable power", etc.

 

No one seriously doubts that the President has inherent authority to conduct foreign surveillance. By the same token, that authority can be regulated, clarified and it is, by FISA. CSR reports are pretty good at setting out the arguments.

[GG]

It is the same argument over and over.  They confuse "inherent authority" with "plenary power" or "absolute power" or "unrestrainable power", etc.

 

No one seriously doubts that the President has inherent authority to conduct foreign surveillance.  By the same token, that authority can be regulated, clarified and it is, by FISA.  CSR reports are pretty good at setting out the arguments.

628191[/snapback]

 

And this is where I appreciate the beauty of your circular argument. You don't deny in the inherent separation of powers between executive and legislative, but don't have a problem with legislative enroaching on executive. But apparently executive has a problem with it.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

And this is where I appreciate the beauty of your circular argument.  You don't deny in the inherent separation of powers between executive and legislative, but don't have a problem with legislative enroaching on executive.  But apparently executive has a problem with it.

628336[/snapback]

Now there is a blanket statement if I ever heard, all the branches step on each others power all the time, that I guess is part of the struggle, Congress even has had a nasty habit of just flat giving it away, i.e., there oversite role to the Admin, and their advise and consent role to. If nothing else this President should be censured for not complying with and not providing required info to the Congress, as in this case. We can go on here, but you are right the argument does get circular, just not in quite the same position you described, I think both hands are being used.

[Johnny Coli]

Johnny, Lieberman and Dodd are the Connecticut senators until they choose not to run again or their hearts stop beating. And they know it.

 

There are no consequences in whether they, or about 80 percent of the rest of both houses of Congress, support this or that legislation.

627938[/snapback]

Ned Lamont announced his candidacy for Lieberman's seat...Today's Hartford Courant

He described Lieberman - an iconic politician who was the first Jew on a presidential ticket as the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2000 - as a "Republican Lite" and "George Bush's favorite Democrat," too cozy with the GOP and too distant from his Democratic roots.

 

"We're going to fight for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party," Lamont told more than 100 supporters at the Old State House. "With your passion, your enthusiasm, the grass roots, the Net roots - we're going to show people on a hot day in August that we can win. We can win not by being Republican Lite, but by being proud Democrats."

 

His candidacy to unseat Lieberman for the Dem nomination is a total longshot. That being said, a strong showing in the primaries could send a significant message to GOP Joe that his cuddling up to this administration won't be tolerated.

 

 

Responding to a criticism of negative campaigning leveled by the Lieberman camp (interesting that they would even respond to a total unknown who just announced his candidacy...hmmm...), is Tom Swan:

Tom Swan, Lamont's campaign manager, said Lamont attacked Lieberman's record, not his integrity.

 

"That's what their focus groups tell them they have do, portray Ned as angry. That's asinine," Swan said. "We're going to talk about Lieberman's record. It would be a good record - for a Republican from Mississippi."

That's a great line.

[Ghost of BiB]

I've always considered Lieberman one of the more sensible from either side of the aisle. Since when does someone have to be "liberal" to be a democrat? I could live with him as President, much more so than Gore or Kerry, or Hillary.

[KRC]

I've always considered Lieberman one of the more sensible from either side of the aisle. Since when does someone have to be "liberal" to be a democrat?

628679[/snapback]

 

It is not about sensibility. It is about party loyalty. The party comes before anything else. Of course, that is one of the reasons why things are so eff'ed up now, but that is another thread.

[GG]

It is not about sensibility. It is about party loyalty. The party comes before anything else. Of course, that is one of the reasons why things are so eff'ed up now, but that is another thread.

628683[/snapback]

 

Is that beacuse the Dem senator dared to utter, "there's no such thing as a free lunch" at one of his appearances with union workers?

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

It is not about sensibility. It is about party loyalty. The party comes before anything else. Of course, that is one of the reasons why things are so eff'ed up now, but that is another thread.

628683[/snapback]

I couldn't agree with you more, the problem is that party loyalty has Republicans in the Senate and House abdicating their oversite role of this President. Dems historically have not been that disciplined, and probably never will be. We tolerate a lot more disenssion, there is no Tom Delay or Carl Rove in our ranks, But Lieberman crosses over that line of tolerance on foreign policy issues and specific domestic because he has shown differences with basic strategy, becoming a symbol of Dems not having a backbone against Bush.

 

I don't always believe that, but he seems to step up and support the President every time Dems call him on his FP b.s.

 

If he wants to switch parties, he should have the guts to do so. Playing the middle causes a lot of dead armadillos and smudged yellow lines.

[Ghost of BiB]

I couldn't agree with you more, the problem is that party loyalty has Republicans in the Senate and House abdicating their oversite role of this President.  Dems historically have not been that disciplined, and probably never will be.  We tolerate a lot more disenssion, there is no Tom Delay or Carl Rove in our ranks, But Lieberman crosses over that line of tolerance on foreign policy issues and specific domestic because he has shown differences with basic strategy, becoming a symbol of Dems not having a backbone against Bush. 

 

I don't always believe that, but he seems to step up and support the President every time Dems call him on his FP b.s.

 

If he wants to switch parties, he should have the guts to do so.  Playing the middle causes a lot of dead armadillos and smudged yellow lines.

629172[/snapback]

 

You could also view that as a gourmet treat. "'possum on the half shell".

 

So, Lieberman is bad because he might actually agree with some of Bush's FP philosophies as opposed to not having any - which is pretty well where your party has been for about 15 years.

[KRC]

I couldn't agree with you more, the problem is that party loyalty has Republicans in the Senate and House abdicating their oversite role of this President. 

 

Except when they want to make a name for themselves and kill the Dubai Ports World deal while completely ignoring other countries who also operate our ports. Then, the oversite goes apesh!t.

 

 

 

Dems historically have not been that disciplined, and probably never will be.  We tolerate a lot more disenssion, there is no Tom Delay or Carl Rove in our ranks,

 

When was the last time the Dems controlled the WH, Senate and House? It probably has something to do with that. Of course, they cannot even come up with an agenda beyond "Bush Bad," so it is hard to have dissenters when there is no message to dissent from.

 

 

 

But Lieberman crosses over that line of tolerance on foreign policy issues and specific domestic because he has shown differences with basic strategy, becoming a symbol of Dems not having a backbone against Bush. 

 

It takes more than just one Senator to do that.

 

 

 

 

If he wants to switch parties, he should have the guts to do so.  Playing the middle causes a lot of dead armadillos and smudged yellow lines.

629172[/snapback]

 

Sounds like the Republican arguments against McCain. He sides with the other party on certain issues and he gets disowned by the party.

[Campy]

I still suspect they are hiding behind the executive priviledge exception as a way to avoid exposing illegal domestic surveillance. 

628115[/snapback]

FWIW, FISA and the FISA Court can be used to monitor US citizens.

 

50 U.S.C.A. § 1801(i), there must be probable cause to believe that the U.S. person's activities "may" or "are about to" involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

You could also view that as a gourmet treat. "'possum on the half shell".

 

So, Lieberman is bad because he might actually agree with some of Bush's FP philosophies as opposed to not having any - which is pretty well where your party has been for about 15 years.

629203[/snapback]

On FP sometimes, same as GOP internationalists v. isolationists...Dems have the same folks and with the exception of DPW, they grumble, but don't usually take any action.

 

I don't think on FP there is any less diversity, but we have more loose canons, always have. But the argument that we don't have a direction is a talking points from a GOP playbook. Think you just accused some else of the same thing on another subject.

Where is the wet noodle when I need one.

 

We have many different directions, the analogy is more like hearding cats v. dogs.

Dogs lower their heads but go along with you or if you speak with the right enthusiam they will jump off a cliff for you. A cat if it even decides to look over the edge of the cliff, will still tell you to F-off if it thinks it knows better.

[Mickey]

And this is where I appreciate the beauty of your circular argument.  You don't deny in the inherent separation of powers between executive and legislative, but don't have a problem with legislative enroaching on executive.  But apparently executive has a problem with it.

628336[/snapback]

Is that how you see the balance of powers, each branch having totally separate, never overlapping powers?

 

From the CRS report on the issue:

 

"Foreign intelligence collection is not among Congress’s powers enumerated in Article I of the Constitution, nor is it expressly mentioned in Article II as a responsibility of the President. Yet it is difficult to imagine that the Framers intended to reserve foreign intelligence collection to the states or to deny the authority to the federal government altogether. It is more likely that the power to collect intelligence resides somewhere within the domain of foreign affairs and war powers, both of which areas are inhabited to some degree by the President together with the Congress.

 

 

The SCOTUS specifically invited congress to legislate with regard to domestic security taps, ie, taps on US soil as opposed to outside the US or inside having to do with crime, not security. The quote: "Given these potential distinctions

between Title III criminal surveillances and those involving domestic security, Congress may wish to consider protective standards for the latter which differ from those already prescribed for specified crimes in Title III." And legislate they did. Hence FISA. Which, by the way, has been held to be constitutional several times.

 

The essential analysis for the Courts in analyzing Presidential actions is whether he acts with congress, against it or in its absence. When he acts with the authority of congress, his power is at its utmost for he has all of his own constitutional authority, plus the powers of the congress. His power is weaker when it is in an area where congress is silent and at its weakest where congress has acted for then he can rely on his powers alone. If this were to go to court, the analysis would be based on his power being at its weakest.