i’m too tired to post outrage, but here are a couple of links regarding the fisa “compromise” and impending votes in the house (tomorrow) and in the senate (next week) …
this vote is going to be a test of obama’s rhetoric. we don’t believe in prayer, but that doesn’t mean that i don’t have the very strong urge to do it anyway.
June 20, 2008 at 9:32 am
Here is where you can go to see your representative’s position.
http://www.stopthespying.org/
There is also contact information and talking points should you want to encourage him to change his vote.
June 20, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Maybe I’m naive but i just don’t get the outrage. Poll after poll shows this is a non-issue to most Americas.
June 20, 2008 at 3:58 pm
my big problem with it is that it is yet another successful effort by the bush administration — and by that i mean dick cheney — to usurp power from the judicial and legislative branches for the exclusive use by the executive branch.
that’s only part of the problem, though. there is also the issue of the fourth amendment being twisted around.
i’m not an attorney, of course. you might want to check out a couple of frontline episodes:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/
also, this is an excellent book by senator robert byrd:
http://www.amazon.com/Losing-America-Confronting-Reckless-Presidency/dp/0393327019/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213994818&sr=1-1
and, finally, i give you an excerpt from the federalist, paper no. 47, by james madison:
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
(madison continues this discussion in papers 49-51. and outlines why our constitution protects against such tyranny.)
of course, the accrual of power by the bush administration, while mostly due to the white house’s amazing implacability, is also due to a democratic congress that couldn’t adapt to white house tactics … i hate making this analogy, but i think it is fitting: the white house is like the celtics defense. the senate is like the lakers offense. the former is physical and nasty, and the latter doesn’t know how to respond in kind.
i think it is kind of sad people don’t care about this.
and the ramifications go beyond this presidency … the precedent has been set … i seriously doubt any president (democrat or republican) is going to willingly cede the extra powers the executive branch now holds.
our poor constitution. our poor selves.
June 20, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Teddy Roosevelt greatly expanded the presidency by insisting that the president holds any powers not specifically denied to him by the Constitution. Many presidents since him have tried to push that boundary. You can look at examples like the way FDR loaded the Supreme Court to the way Truman attempted to take over the steel industry. It’s up to SCOTUS to rule on the constitutionality of their actions. If it is found to be un-constituional, then they must back off, not be arrested.
I still don’t see the problem with this specific piece of legislation.
June 21, 2008 at 12:10 pm
frankly, i’m hoping for something out of the supreme court, either way* … i want to see this eventual law go through the entire vetting process.
and to compare the way t.r. used the presidency to the current administration’s tact is a surprising move from you. i think the substance of the “expansion” needs to be taken into consideration. t.r.’s use of executive power was to revolutionize the federal government as an arbiter of social justice … a quite “progressive” strategy. incidentally, i don’t recall any of t.r.’s actions trampling on any of the bill of rights.
the bush administration’s expansion of power, in my opinion, is solely for the purpose of continuing a long-discredited and — as we have seen every day for nearly eight years — failed neoconservative agenda.
if you will note, fdr tried to “pack” the supreme court, and the bill died in congress. truman tried to nationalize the steel industry, but the supreme court stopped him.
i hold congress (and congressional democrats) responsible for being unable to secure greater authority in the bill.
i’m not against fisa. i am against denying u.s. citizens redress. i am also against efforts by the white house to secure check-less and balance-less authority.
i suppose you and i must agree to disagree. you don’t think it is a big deal. i do.
* with the 5-4 decision on guantanamo, i’m not too hopeful for any great strike against the changes to fisa or the retroactive immunity to the telecoms.
June 21, 2008 at 11:36 pm
TR wanted to use the presidency to push through improvements that he believed Congress would not inact. he looked at it as more efficient, with efficency in govt being a key ‘progresssive’ ideal. Bush believed that the changes made to the FISA program would make it a more efficent program. So far SCOTUS has checked that, so the govt is working the way it should.
You have to remember that Congress and the President do things that are later over-ruled by SCOTUS all the time. it’s a give and take between the branches.
I honestly don’t see FISA as a particularly neo-con move….I see it as an attempt at tightening national security.