<p>Fundingfather,</p>
<p>As William F. Buckley used to say all the time, “who says A must say B.” I’m not suggesting that listening to phone calls is the moral equivalent of dropping chemical weapons on a village. I’m not suggesting that eavesdropping is the moral equivalent of murder. What I am doing is exploring the implications of the argument that Article II puts the president beyond the reaches of the law when it comes to national defense.</p>
<p>Why don’t you ask Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter the same question? Or, ask that question of legal scholars who are familiar with these types of constitutional issues - starting with the ones who have been posted on this thread. It’s funny how these thorny questions are only asked by the left when a Republican president is involved. When a Democratic president does it … not a peep of resistance.</p>
<p>
To that I refer you to the view of Clinton’s associate AG which I linked to earlier.</p>
<p>Fundingfather,</p>
<p>I actually read the article you cited from Clinton’s associate AG. My posting was in fact written in response to that article. I don’t care whether he worked for Clinton - his view is misguided and dangerous. </p>
<p>Your argument that Democratic presidents get a free pass on civil liberties from liberals is unpersuasive. The ACLU took on the Clinton administration for the Communications Decency Act, the Clipper chip initiative and other restrictions on encryption, and the Child Online Protection Act, among others.</p>
<p>I’ll grant you that occupants of the presidency, regardless of party, typically take a more expansive view of the constitutional limits of presidential power than I do, or the founding fathers did. LBJ was a notorious wiretapper, to give you another example. </p>
<p>This is a partisan issue only for that shrinking minority that insists on defending George W.'s entire record. </p>
<p>Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.</p>
<p>That’s the best you’ve got, FF? You think Clinton and Carter did it, too, so it’s OK now? When did this become “my team vs. your team”? (For that matter, when did “Two wrongs make a right” become the rule?) I’ve gone back and checked your blog-sourced “They did it first!” excuses - and they really don’t hold water. All I found was a program which was designed to filter everything it pulls off the airwaves for keywords like “bomb” - without targeting anyone in particular - and which never actually worked (I know some people who worked on the project.) Is this your justification for the claim that “Carter and Clinton did it, too!” If so, that’s really lame.</p>
<p>I’ve even gone back and read the fuzzy analysis by the former sub-cabinet level lawyer in the Clinton administration circa 1997. It’s remarkably vague and muddled, but if he’s arguing that as long as the Pres is targeting “foreign” enemies there’s no limit to what he can do, here in America as well as abroad, it’s proof that it’s possible for a Democrat to be just as craven and addled as a Republican (a premise I’ve never doubted, by the way 
) Honest - just because a Democrat (he is still a Dem, isn’t he?) says it, doesn’t mean I am going to agree just because he’s on “my team.” Wrong is wrong.</p>
<p>You’ve still avoided my question: why should the President not be required to seek a warrant to spy on Americans here in America? Why would Bush angrily (as reported) insist on his right to spy on Americans, in America, wthout getting a warrant, even from the roundheels FISA court? Why, why, why? </p>
<p>Is there anything you would object to GWBush doing if he said it was intended to fight terrorism? Anything at all? Is there any line you are willing to draw?</p>
<p>
Well, you say that you’ve gone back and checked the links, but it doesn’t sound like you really read them. Go back and see whether it is these people who just “believe” that the law is on their side or whether the courts actually agree with them. You may not like the constitution, but it does allow for means to amend it. I suggest that you proceed along those lines.</p>
<p>Susantm, if there is any karmic justice, we’ll get to watch FF, D, and BiF gnash their teeth through eight years of a Hillary administration, eight years of a Barack Obama generation, etc. unto the seventh generation.
I swear, they do talk and act as if they think there’s going to be a 1,000-year Republican Reich. Not that they aren’t trying.</p>
<p>I’m sorry - just where does the Constitution say "the President can do whatever he wants as long as he says he’s doing it for “national security”? I don’t see that. What I see is a lot of tortured reasoning which goes:<br>
<p>I’ve read the arguments. They’re smoke and mirrors which only a true believer could love. Their logic, if valid, would in fact justify the parade of horribles Greybeard posits. Do we have to wait for it all to play out, or are we allowed to point out the naked Emperor now?</p>
<p>FF, D and Bif, will stop supporting Bush when he gets bl*** by an intern. Maybe.</p>
<p>Or when he raises their taxes.</p>
<p>Greybeard - this is off topic, for which I apologize to the other posters. Your posts on this thread are so beautifully written, I don’t see how anyone could improve on the language. I can only imagine your legal writing. I am sorry I have not had a chance to work with you. It has always seemed to me that a person who thinks clearly, does not always write clearly. But it is very difficult to write clearly unless you also think clearly. </p>
<p>Of course, clear arguments may be made on both sides of this issue. But apparently not on this thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ROTFLMAO!!</p>
<p>I wonder how many actual taps were or are being done under this act? I am old enough to remember Nixon’s list and J. Edgar Hoovers secret files on those sneaky anti americans like Reverend King, and the Smothers Brothers.</p>
<p>FF, I certainly protested LBJ’s abuse of the constitution and didn’t know about Jimmy Carter or Clintons wiretapping of American citizens without judicial review. How many taps do you think Bush has done without review: 10, 100, 1000, 10,000? What number would concern you? Serious question, do you have a response?</p>
<p>Congress were sympathic to the Presidency’s mentioned and had a firm control of their responsibility. Now, the situation for Congress is more evenly split between the political parties and even though it is generally sympathic to GW, they know that they have given up considerable power to this administration. The question is whether Congress and specifically the Republicans will truely be more Constitutional. Another avenue is to have an agrieve US citizen sue the Government and the issue is to be taken up by the Courts. However the situation may further degrade in that even the Court may be ignored and defacto desolved. </p>
<p>just thinking.</p>
<p>Itstoomuch, I think you’ve touched on a central point, although your facts are a little off. When Congress is dominated by Republicans, and you have a Democrat in the White House, you get a lot of oversight. With a Republican Congress and a Republican in the White House, you get a lot of whistling and looking the other way. </p>
<p>The Republicans in Congress would have subpoenaed half of Oklahoma if they heard a rumor that Clinton had dropped a gum wrapper in Tulsa; they didn’t lift a finger while Abramoff, DeLay and their buddies were selling Congressional power to the highest bidder - even though it was common knowledge in Washington. It’s all a part of the function of power corrupting. The Republicans are in power in Congress and the White House, with no effective oversight other what comes from outside from law enforcement and the press. Even if the Democrats wanted to investigate wrongdoing, they have no control over the Congressional committees which investigate - so no investigation or oversight of Republicans occurs in this Congress. If Abramoff’s actions hadn’t ticked off competing lobbyists - who have their own power to protect, and means of doing so - he probably would have sailed on, untouched, untill the Republicans eventually lost power.</p>
<p>Here are some examples of the difference between Congress’ actions during the Clinton vs. Bush administrations:</p>
<p>— Between 1997 and 2002, the government reform panel issued 1,052 subpoenas related to investigations of the Clinton administration and the Democratic National Committee, but only 11 subpoenas related to allegations of Republican abuse.</p>
<p>— The (Republican controlled) House took 140 hours of sworn testimony into whether Clinton had used the White House Christmas card list to identify potential Democratic donors in the 1990’s, but only 12 hours of sworn testimony about the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison.</p>
<p>I’m not saying it’s a phenomenon exclusive to Republicans - just that they have demonstrated the truism with uncommon gusto in recent years.</p>
<p>From Bush’s signing statement on the “torture ban”:</p>
<p>“The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.”</p>
<p>In other words, in the view of this president, Article II exempts him from complying with any laws that would restrict his conduct as commander in chief.</p>
<p>Here’s the actual text we’re talking about from Article II, which consists of part of a single sentence: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…”</p>
<p>By contrast, here are some of the powers of Congress under Article I, Section 8: "[10] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
[11] To declare War, grant Letters of Margue and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
[12] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two years;
[13] To provide and maintain a Navy;
[14] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces…</p>
<p>Clearly, the Founding Fathers were fashioning a series of checks and balances with respect to the armed forces. If Bush claims that he directs the activities of the CIA and NSA in his capacity as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,” Congress should be able to regulate wiretapping and prohibit torture as under its power “[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces”. It should be able to prohibit torture under its power to “make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water,” and under its power to define and punish offenses agains the law of nations.</p>
<p>nevermind, already said.</p>
<p>update:
Bush disapproval/approval stats
<a href=“http://surveyusa.com/50State2006/50StateBushApproval060216Approval.htm[/url]”>http://surveyusa.com/50State2006/50StateBushApproval060216Approval.htm</a></p>
<p>Yeah, I’ve been tracking those. Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, Nevada, Florida all stand out for me. Which goes to explain that I would not be cocky about any Republican chances those states this year. Some may win…best bets are Florida gubernatiorial and Nevada Senate…but I wouldn’t be betting the mortage money.</p>
<p>What do you think this says about the votes in the states who supported Bush but now disapprove of his Presidency? Was Kerry that unappealing to them or were they deceived into believing Bush was something other than what they see now?</p>
<p>IF Roe v. Wade is overturned by the Bush Supreme court will they approve of him again.</p>
<p>To Citygirlsmom – this will make you smile:
<a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/01/IMPEACH.TMP[/url]”>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/01/IMPEACH.TMP</a></p>
<p>(I’m sure they did this just to make your day)</p>