0
   

America... Spying on Americans II

 
 
jespah
 
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 05:41 am
This is a continuation of http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=65399

That topic will not be unlocked; please use this one instead. Thank you.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 13,812 • Replies: 311
No top replies

 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 08:31 am
Thanks Jesaph,

I can hardly wait to see what happens next with our superhero and his ability to dodge dangerous laws that threaten his abilities.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 09:09 am
I can hardly wait to see the propaganda.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 09:18 am
Ticomaya wrote:
I can hardly wait to see the propaganda.


I've seen it already. You aren't writing anything new Tico.. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 11:45 am
The other thread is locked? Were we misbehaving?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 12:03 pm
Maybe too much off-topicness?

I have no idea.

But I firmly intend to keep this one on-topic. I'll begin with the concept of Signing Statements.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/01/AR2006010100788.html

Quote:
Alito Once Made Case For Presidential Power

By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 2, 2006; A11

As a young Justice Department lawyer, Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. tried to help tip the balance of power between Congress and the White House a little more in favor of the executive branch.

In the 1980s, the Reagan administration, like other White Houses before and after, chafed at the reality that Congress's reach on the meaning of laws extends beyond the words of statutes passed on Capitol Hill. Judges may turn to the trail of statements lawmakers left behind in the Congressional Record when trying to glean the intent behind a law. The White House left no comparable record.

In a Feb. 5, 1986, draft memo, Alito, then deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel, outlined a strategy for changing that. It laid out a case for having the president routinely issue statements about the meaning of statutes when he signs them into law.

Such "interpretive signing statements" would be a significant departure from run-of-the-mill bill signing pronouncements, which are "often little more than a press release," Alito wrote. The idea was to flag constitutional concerns and get courts to pay as much attention to the president's take on a law as to "legislative intent."

"Since the president's approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the president's understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress," Alito wrote. He later added that "by forcing some rethinking by courts, scholars, and litigants, it may help to curb some of the prevalent abuses of legislative history."

The Reagan administration popularized the use of such statements and subsequent administrations continued the practice. (The courts have yet to give them much weight, though.)

President Bush has been especially fond of them, issuing at least 108 in his first term, according to presidential scholar Phillip J. Cooper of Portland State University in Oregon. Many of Bush's statements rejected provisions in bills that the White House regarded as interfering with its powers in national security, intelligence policy and law enforcement, Cooper wrote recently in the academic journal Presidential Studies Quarterly.

The Bush administration "has very effectively expanded the scope and character of the signing statement not only to address specific provisions of legislation that the White House wishes to nullify, but also in an effort to significantly reposition and strengthen the powers of the presidency relative to the Congress," Cooper wrote in the September issue. "This tour d' force has been carried out in such a systematic and careful fashion that few in Congress, the media, or the scholarly community are aware that anything has happened at all."

Bush may be acting without fanfare for a reason. As Alito noted in his memo, the statements "will not be warmly welcomed" on Capitol Hill.

"The novelty of the procedure and the potential increase of presidential power are two factors that may account for this anticipated reaction," he wrote. "In addition, and perhaps most important, Congress is likely to resent the fact that the president will get in the last word on questions of interpretation."

© 2006 The Washington Post Company


The writer of the above article is exactly right. Bush has effectively used Signing statements as a line-item veto over legislation that affects the Executive Branch. This represents a direct contradiction of the Seperation of Powers ideals that run our government.

This goes back to the underlying theory/problem with the Bush White House: a lack of respect for the law. A belief that they are above the law. A belief that whatever they do, is legal by definition. A willingness to lie, decieve, ruin people's careers and lives, in order to get what they want.

This sort of unchecked power in the executive branch is far more dangerous to America than any terrorist could ever be! We can defend against foreign invasion and we can deal with terrorists blowing up bombs. America cannot deal with corruption at the top, so intense, that it has twisted the very nature of our system away from a Representative democracy and closer to.... something else.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 12:16 pm
The feelings about this run pretty deep in all camps. This is a link taken from an advertisement running on Ted Nugent's website:

http://www.superlatees.com/

Hopefully it's OK to post it here because it is relevant.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 12:37 pm
http://www.superlatees.com/images/undersurv.gif

It is definitely relevant. This isn't the America that our founders fought to secure for us.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 12:39 pm
Thanks for the post cjhsa, I ordered one of those shirts!

This issue is making strange bedfellows, for sure.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 01:19 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'll begin with the concept of Signing Statements.


We only have one law-making branch: Congress.

The president may propose laws. The president may negotiate with Congress over the passage of laws that he deems necessary and proper for our country. But, only Congress can write laws and pass the laws.

When Congress has passed a bill, it presents the bill to the president. The president has three choices: sign it, veto it, or do nothing.

If the president signs the bill, it becomes law.

If the president does nothing, it becomes law after 10 days unless Congress has recessed making it impossible for the president to return the bill to Congress within that 10 day period.

If the president vetos the bill, he must return it to the originating house along with his objections for the record. Congress will then consider the president's objections. However, Congress has the power to override the president's objections.

At one time, Congress gave the president the power to sign the law and thereafter to issue a line-item of veto of any parts of the law that the president objected to. The line-item veto was declared unconstitutional. The president may not pick and choose what portions of the law that he will approve or disapprove. The Constitution only gives the president the option to approve the bill in its entirety--or reject the bill in its entirety. The president has no constitutional authority to rewrite legislation through the use of a line-item veto. The whole power of writing laws belongs to Congress alone.

The president's constitutional duty is to faithfully execute the laws of the United States--as written by Congress. The president had the opportunity during consideration of the law, BEFORE it was made law, to negotiate with Congress. If the president lost the political battle during negotiations, he cannot effectuate what he wanted from his failed negotiations through a post-hoc signing statement. He is violating his duty to faithfully execute the laws.

When a court applies a law, a court uses the plain language of the law itself. When the law clearly states that the government shall not engage in the electronic surveillance of United States persons without FISA court approval--the law says what it means and it means what it says.

If the law is ambiguous--capable of having more than one reasonable interpretation--courts will often look at the legislative history to determine what interpretation of the law best effectuates legislative intent. A presidential signing statement cannot alter or amend the law in a manner inconsistent with legislative intent. Any alterations or amendments to the law must be made by Congress alone.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 01:46 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
I can hardly wait to see the propaganda.


I can't wait to see the definition of propaganda.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 01:54 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
I can hardly wait to see the propaganda.


I can't wait to see the definition of propaganda.


http://www.tfd.com/propaganda



Is your dictionary broken?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 02:20 pm
Just wanted to make sure yours works.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 02:50 pm
Re: America... Spying on Americans II
jespah wrote:
This is a continuation of http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=65399

That topic will not be unlocked; please use this one instead. Thank you.


Why was the thread locked? Did we break the rules? Which ones?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 08:43 pm
Re: America... Spying on Americans II
Debra_Law wrote:
jespah wrote:
This is a continuation of http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=65399

That topic will not be unlocked; please use this one instead. Thank you.


Why was the thread locked? Did we break the rules? Which ones?


It probably has to do with length of the thread. It slows down the servers or something. A LOT of lengthy posts in that thread too.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 09:19 pm
That's my guess. Same like the Bush Supporters thread.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 09:37 am
FreeDuck wrote:
That's my guess. Same like the Bush Supporters thread.


I'd like to say it's because of the size of Debra's posts, but I don't think she posted at the Bush Supporters' thread .....
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 10:13 am
Ticomaya wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
That's my guess. Same like the Bush Supporters thread.


I'd like to say it's because of the size of Debra's posts, but I don't think she posted at the Bush Supporters' thread .....


Not that there is a cause and effect but I can think of one person that has posted extensively on both. Stastical probability says there could well be a link between the two.

Not to name names but his name begins with Ticomaya. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 10:51 am
Yahoo News
Quote:
Judges Back Court Review of Eavesdropping

By PETE YOST

Associated Press Writer

2 hours, 23 minutes ago

Five federal judges gave a boost Tuesday to legislation that would bring court scrutiny to the Bush administration's domestic spying program.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing chaired by Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., the judges reacted favorably to his proposal that would require the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to conduct regular reviews of the four-year-old program.

The existence of the warrantless surveillance by the National Security Agency was revealed by The New York Times three months ago.

The judges stressed that they were not offering their views on the NSA operation, which they said they knew nothing about.

But they said the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has operated capably for 28 years and is fully able to protect civil liberties and give the administration all the speed and flexibility it needs to execute the war on terror.

The administration contends the president has inherent war powers under the Constitution to order eavesdropping without warrants.

"I am very wary of inherent authority" claimed by presidents, testified U.S. Magistrate Judge Allan Kornblum. "It sounds very much like King George."


Where does the President and his crew of cronies derive the 'inherent authority' argument from, exactly?

The problem that Specter and Roberts and DeWine are going to run up against is that the Administration has claimed that, due to the 'Unitary Executive Branch,' they will not be bound by any rules that Congress makes. So the proposed 'legistlation' means nothing, because the same theory the President uses to claim that FISA does not bind him, will mean the next bill passed won't bind him either.

Will this cause a ruckus amongst Senate Republicans? It seems that Specter at least has an idea about what's going on:

In an interview about the program with The Associated Press last week, Specter said administration officials want to do "just as they please, for as long as they can get away with it. I think what is going on now without congressional intervention or judicial intervention is just plain wrong."

I'm not sure that Bush realizes that Senators, even Republican ones, consider themselves just as important as he does. They won't appreciate being cut out of the loop.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 12:18 pm
It's plain and simple that the ambiguities of the Patriot Act and the authorization for Bush's war has allowed our Government to do whatever the hell they damn well please while dancing on the grave of the U.S. Constitution. And when Bush argues why we are fighting in Iraq, that we are spreading freedom and democracy throughout the region, it is nothing more than the usual neoconservative bait and switch in negating the profound realization of what this administration is doing to our own Democracy.

9/11 was clearly designed to scare Americans into enough of a submission for Bush to do his dirty work. Spying, torture, and corruption have become just a few of the end results of our looking the other way.

It's the classic:

http://files.photojerk.com/Dookiestix/021205Clinton.jpg
0 Replies
 
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » America... Spying on Americans II
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/04/2021 at 04:12:26