In the end this is not an act of the Democrats

Oh geez, delusional doesn’t even begin to describe this guy. Not the act of Democrats?

Wow!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I TOTALLY and utterly disagree with the assessment that Democrats are not pandering to the far-left, and that 70% of the country supports this notion. The Democrats are completely pandering to the Daily Kos and MoveOn.org (to name two fringe groups)…the question is “why?” I think they fear the netroots movement and the perceived power they seem to hold…

If they weren’t concerned with the fringe groups, why speak at the Daily Kos convention next week (i.e. Clinton and Obama)?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The idea the proposal to censure Bush for his handling of the war comes from the far-left is a wishful fantasy. Polls indicate that most of the nation is disgruntled concerning Iran and no reasonable person can expect politicians not to suck up to people who, by poll, comprise some 70 per cent of the population. That’s not the far-left by any reasonable stretch of the term. These are people many of whom actually voted for Bush twice. The fact is, the Democrats in general have been surprisingly reluctant to cater to the far-left, the moderate left and the center in this regard, and surprisingly willing to give Bush what he wants. In the end this is not an act of the Democrats. Feingold is one man, who as you yourself point out, does not have the support of his leadership.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Is it your position, Todd, that President Bush did not did not violate the Consitution by bypassing FISA courts, or that, if he did, it’s no big deal? Or is there a third position I’m missing?

I don’t know about Todd but my position is well known. He did NOT violate the constitution by bypassing FISA seeing how the program spied on foreign agents, which is well within his power. Five former FISA judges agree:

A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).

The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president’s constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.

“If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now,” said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. “I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute.”

Is it your position the Clinton violated the Constitution with Carnivore? Was Carter violating the Constitution when he ordered wiretaps without a court order?

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

Or Clinton:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

Finally John Hinderaker put up a great analysis of the program:

Article II makes the President Commander in Chief of the armed forces. As such he is preeminent in foreign policy, and especially in military affairs. This was no accident; as Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 74, “Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand.” The federal courts have long recognized that when it comes to waging war, the President, not Congress or the courts, is the supreme authority. In Fleming v. Page, 9 How. 603, 615 (1850), the Supreme Court wrote that the President has the Constitutional power to “employ [the Nation's armed forces] in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy.”

No one questions this basic principle. If our soldiers or intelligence agencies discover a terrorist in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere, the President or his designees can order an air strike or other attack to kill him. It would be very odd if the President has the authority to kill a terrorist, but not to intercept his telephone calls or search his cave.

There is one relevant constitutional provision that acts as a restraint on the President’s inherent power as Commander in Chief. That is the Fourth Amendment, which states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So all searches and seizures of Americans or their property (including, as the courts have appropriately ruled, interceptions of telephonic and electronic communications) must be reasonable. Note, however, that this requirement does not apply to terrorists overseas. A Special Forces soldier can pick a cave arbitrarily and search it. He isn’t trying to prosecute terrorists, he is trying to kill them. He doesn’t need probable cause.

The Fourth Amendment includes requirements for the issuance of search warrants, and many critics of the NSA program seem to assume that this means that all searches must be executed pursuant to a warrant. This assumption is wrong. There are dozens of situations where warrantless searches have been approved by the courts. The overriding principle is that searches of Americans (defined to include resident aliens) must be reasonable.

One of the many situations where warrantless searches have been approved is when the government is seeking foreign intelligence information, such as information relating to potential terrorist threats. Next to the Constitution itself, of course, the highest authority is the United States Supreme Court. At least three Supreme Court cases have discussed this subject.

[...]The federal appellate courts have unanimously held that the President has the inherent constitutional authority to order warrantless searches for purposes of gathering foreign intelligence information, which includes information about terrorist threats. Furthermore, since this power is derived from Article II of the Constitution, the FISA Review Court has specifically recognized that it cannot be taken away or limited by Congressional action.

That being the case, the NSA intercept program, which consists of warrantless electronic intercepts for purposes of foreign intelligence gathering, is legal.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

[T]he government’s contention is that Congress authorized him these measures in the fight against al-Qaeda…In order to truly defeat Islamists, unfortunately, we have to enter the murky area where the end may justify the means.

Of course, I’m not a Constitutional scholar either, but I’ve taken the usual classes that someone takes in the course of a degree in social science. My memory of the history of the writing of the document is that the Bill of Rights was added specifically because the Framers knew that someone would say, at some point, “We need to do an end-run around the document for your own good,” and it was their intention that this should not be allowed to happen.

As to your other point, I don’t think that an act of Congress can invalidate the Constitution. That is to say, no law could be passed that would waive any of the rights and protections the document gives the people. That’s the purpose of putting them in the Constitution, after all, instead of simply making them statutes. Again, I may be wrong, but, if I am, I’d be interested in the legal rundown of why that would be the case.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

What’s even more disturbing is that the Left will tell you that the Bush administration is 1.) MORE dangerous than militant Islam; and 2.) created more terrorists.

The Islamists do not require much to move to anger. A mere threat of a cartoon depiction of Mohammed, a fiery oration from a local imam, etc, is enough to kill a nun, detonate a car, or behead an “infidel.”

I suppose that’s George Bush’s fault as well…

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I am disgusted by the display of democrats, and liberals alike. Here we have possible dry runs in airports, excessive chatter, attempts in Britain to blow up airports etc., and all the dems can do is bash Bush? Trying to dismantle, distract, and undermind the safety of this country and its people? They have no shame, their lust for power is almost sickening, and I can only hope that these cowards, and appeasers do not continue to lead in 2008. I also wish that conservative would get together, and start a powerful movement, exposing these frauds. I’m just a immigrant (legal), and I can not vote. But what i see going on in this country is that what my father always told me before Hitler became ‘the fuehrer’, and drafted him into war at age 14. Americans have it so nice, and I wish they would appreciate their blessings, however, liberals have dismantled over the period of 40 yrs moral foundations, their vitriol knows no bounds. How truly hardening to watch what is going on, the hate coming from the left is very dangerous, and scary.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I won’t even PRETEND to be an authority on Constitutional law…my point is that Russ Feingold has officially bowed to far-Left pressure by proffering these resolutions. Ultimately, it was the President’s goal to PROTECT American citizens. By “circumventing” the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as one would accuse, the government’s contention is that Congress authorized him these measures in the fight against al-Qaeda. In my opinion, here’s where the Left loses: they accuse the Bush administration of violating the Constitution yet we’re embroiled in a new kind of war with a new enemy. We’re not fighting a enemy that plays by the rules. In order to truly defeat Islamists, unfortunately, we have to enter the murky area where the end may justify the means.

Ultimately, it’s the far-Left and their hatred for all things Bush (i.e. BDS) that is driving this. And the Democrats greedily lap up the money and attention from the Daily Kos, MoveOn.org, Code Pink, etc.

Furthermore, I would think these actions against the president are indicative of the Left NOT taking the Islamic threat seriously by either denying a war on terror exists, or actually welcoming Islamic terror with open arms (e.g. “religion of peace”)…

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Re: Reid’s motions to censure.

Is it your position, Todd, that President Bush did not did not violate the Consitution by bypassing FISA courts, or that, if he did, it’s no big deal? Or is there a third position I’m missing?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Here’s where the Left and far-left really show their disconnect with mainstream America.

i conclude therefore that “meanstream america” is infact merely the planet that you guys inhabit, which is quite obviously not planet earth.

Like or Dislike: 0  0