Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 02/06/2006 View Sun 02/05/2006 View Sat 02/04/2006 View Fri 02/03/2006 View Thu 02/02/2006 View Wed 02/01/2006 View Tue 01/31/2006
1
2006-02-06 Home Front: Politix
Senators considering constitutional amendment to limit presidential power
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Dan Darling 2006-02-06 02:25|| || Front Page|| [11138 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 How about a Constiutional amendment to move the confirmation of SCOTUS justices out of the circus known as the Senate and give the power directly to the people. Not like we should have a democracy where all parts of the government are subject to the direct consent of the governed. Its been less than one hundred years since we did that directly to Senators, making them subject to the consent of the governed. I say its time to update the process.
Posted by Snung Throsh9980 2006-02-06 05:30||   2006-02-06 05:30|| Front Page Top

#2 
Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity. Please correct the condition that applies and try again. Contents may be viewed in the
sinktrap. Further violations may result in
banning.
Posted by wxjames 2006-02-06 07:44||   2006-02-06 07:44|| Front Page Top

#3 I have never been a snarlin Arlen fan and I think this recent spat about spying on bad guys tells us just how dangerous this man is. While most of the left (except for the die hard kool aid drinkers) are backpedaling on the original claim that this program was somehow illegal and unnecessary, here is Specter still carrying that flag. At worst he should remain neutral and at best he should at least acknowledge that if these were not legal the congress should make them legal because they are necessary.
Posted by Cyber Sarge 2006-02-06 08:15||   2006-02-06 08:15|| Front Page Top

#4 Massimo Calabresi in Time magazine. Give me a break. This is the fall back position for those on the left who have realized there won't be an impeachment but still think something must be done. Yawn.
Posted by Slomoper Elminetle3581 2006-02-06 08:40||   2006-02-06 08:40|| Front Page Top

#5 BS alert: I note that no Senators are named in connection with this constitutional amendment. This is a trial balloon by a Lib staffer to see how much support, i.e. righteous outrage, they can gin up from the krazykoskidz
Posted by Scott R">Scott R  2006-02-06 10:50|| http://five24.net]">[http://five24.net]  2006-02-06 10:50|| Front Page Top

#6 They'd best be careful what they ask for. Not many folks I know are ready to have the executive branch run by a committee of three, let alone 535. One more 9/11 and they could easily come out of this with even more war power for the president, not less.
Posted by Darrell 2006-02-06 10:59||   2006-02-06 10:59|| Front Page Top

#7 
Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity. Please correct the condition that applies and try again. Contents may be viewed in the
sinktrap. Further violations may result in
banning.
Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-06 11:19||   2006-02-06 11:19|| Front Page Top

#8 Has Arlen quoted Scottish Law on this yet?
Posted by Inspector Clueso 2006-02-06 11:23||   2006-02-06 11:23|| Front Page Top

#9 o.k. rantburg moderators. maybe this expresses my viewpoint on the topic better.

"Bush v. Reality - The Cult of Imperial Presidency"

by: Tom Englehardt

"2006 is sure to be the year of living dangerously -- for the Bush administration and for the rest of us. In the wake of revelations of warrantless spying by the National Security Agency, we have already embarked on what looks distinctly like a constitutional crisis (which may not come to a full boil until 2007).

In the meantime, the President, Vice President, Secretaries of Defense and State, various lesser officials, crony appointees, acolytes, legal advisors, leftover neocons, spy-masters, strategists, spin doctors, ideologues, lobbyists, Republican Party officials, and congressional backers are intent on packing the Supreme Court with supporters of an "obscure philosophy" of unfettered Presidential power called "the unitary executive theory" and then foisting a virtual cult of the imperial presidency on the country."
Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-06 13:20||   2006-02-06 13:20|| Front Page Top

#10 Lol, wotta maroon. Quoting some partisan hack brimming full of conspiratorial DU wanking is supposed to impress us?

Lol. What matters, No Sense, is that there is no "there" there. Read the 5 court decisions and despair, little one.

Meanwhile, back in reality, we can have a good laugh at the notion that this story is remotely rational, reflects anything but Dhimmidonk Dreaming Aloud, that the amendment process wouldn't squelch this Kos Kiddie Kool Aid Klutzfest - rendering it stillborn, and that the Chomskyites are mainstream. Check the election figures for verification of this view.

Feel the vibrations. Follow the energy. Be like water. Take a leak.
Posted by .com 2006-02-06 13:38||   2006-02-06 13:38|| Front Page Top

#11 .com

why do you always talk in the plural as if you speak for everyone in here?

I'm not trying to impress anyone, just posting a point of view on the subject I agree with.
If what you say is true, I suggest you call Sen.
Arlen Specter, (who is a republican and leads the Senate investigation) and tell him to call the whole thing off..I'm sure he will follow your advice.
Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-06 13:46||   2006-02-06 13:46|| Front Page Top

#12 Common Sense = Bird Dirt = Cassini etc.
Posted by SR-71">SR-71  2006-02-06 14:17||   2006-02-06 14:17|| Front Page Top

#13 yes.
Posted by lotp 2006-02-06 14:19||   2006-02-06 14:19|| Front Page Top

#14 why do you always talk in the plural as if you speak for everyone in here?

We had a meeting and he drew the short stick, so he has troll patrol. Too bad for you. He was pretty p. o. 'ed. Know what he said?

" I coulda been a moderator."
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-02-06 14:24||   2006-02-06 14:24|| Front Page Top

#15 ROFL, NS!

Typical Dhimmidonk wedge move there LA/Cass/No Sense (et al) trolltwit. NS just thumped ya for it, little one. Been here a long time - and you're a n00b troll.
Posted by .com 2006-02-06 14:30||   2006-02-06 14:30|| Front Page Top

#16 why do you always talk in the plural as if you speak for everyone in here?



We are all .com.
Posted by Ambassador Kosh 2006-02-06 14:32||   2006-02-06 14:32|| Front Page Top

#17 LOLOL, AK!

Okay, now we really need coffee alerts for this level of provocation, lol!
Posted by .com 2006-02-06 14:34||   2006-02-06 14:34|| Front Page Top

#18 CS, for me the salient feature of the story you posted is that it does not cite names. I agree that this is quite probably a policy / PR balloon floated by a staffer to see if it can attract sponsorhip.

Now, that's not a bad thing per se, nor are the questions about balance of power illegitimate. However, there is an (understandably, to my mind) automatic reaction to this sort of move because the left has been so very unhelpful in offering any positive policies or mechanisms for dealing with what I consider a serious, long-term threat to our country and our civilization.
Posted by lotp 2006-02-06 14:34||   2006-02-06 14:34|| Front Page Top

#19 I'll let .com speak for me anytime he's addressing No Sense. I've stopped reading No Sense's blather anyway.
Posted by Darrell 2006-02-06 14:35||   2006-02-06 14:35|| Front Page Top

#20 "While most of the left (except for the die hard kool aid drinkers) are backpedaling on the original claim that this program was somehow illegal and unnecessary, here is Specter still carrying that flag. At worst he should remain neutral and at best he should at least acknowledge that if these were not legal the congress should make them legal because they are necessary. "

Pardon me, but IIUC the Admin is NOT pushing to have the congress make them legal. Cause that would raise the question of why they didnt do so earlier. They SAY that the congressional leaders they spoke to said that it couldnt be done under strict secrecy. I think that the first thing Spector needs to investigate is which congressmen told them that, and what those congressmen have to say. It may be that the result of such an investigation would put the whole thing to bed. Or not. But I think it has to be investigated.
Posted by liberalhawk 2006-02-06 14:40||   2006-02-06 14:40|| Front Page Top

#21 I'm for an investigation - of the leakers.
Posted by .com 2006-02-06 14:47||   2006-02-06 14:47|| Front Page Top

#22 blah blah blah blah.....

Why dont all of you e-mail, phone, or whatever form of communication you prefer: Senator Arlen
Specter (REPUBLICAN) and tell HIM to CALL OFF THE HEARINGS..LMAO
Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-06 15:07||   2006-02-06 15:07|| Front Page Top

#23 uh huh - LMAO = I just got spanked and can't say so

Congress has only a few approval points in the polls to drop. Arlen can take them there
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2006-02-06 15:24||   2006-02-06 15:24|| Front Page Top

#24 
Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity. Please correct the condition that applies and try again. Contents may be viewed in the
sinktrap. Further violations may result in
banning.
Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-06 15:28||   2006-02-06 15:28|| Front Page Top

#25 And if pigs could fly, you'd be a moderator.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-02-06 15:31||   2006-02-06 15:31|| Front Page Top

#26 Yeah, that'll work. NOT!

Freakin' twits. Quick question: what was the LAST Cons. Amdt. about, and did it get ratified?
Posted by mojo">mojo  2006-02-06 15:33||   2006-02-06 15:33|| Front Page Top

#27 If members of Congress really are upset about Presidential power they should have used their own Congressional power when it came to a vote for these things instead of posturing and caving to political pressure. Perhaps they could have drafted (or demanded) a declaration of War way back when that all sorts of laws and articles could have been attached to so as to have a definate sunset date.

We don't need a Congress that can be intimidated by Peer pressure.
Posted by rjschwarz">rjschwarz  2006-02-06 15:34|| rjschwarz.com]">[rjschwarz.com]  2006-02-06 15:34|| Front Page Top

#28 So all of you on the right agree with the Bush/Cheney doctrine of "the unitary executive theory"?
Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-06 15:42||   2006-02-06 15:42|| Front Page Top

#29 So all of you on the right agree with the Bush/Cheney doctrine of "the unitary executive theory"?

*sigh*

Read the Constitution. Executive authority rests in the office of the president. Not Congress, not the courts -- the president. That's what "unitary executive" refers to; the idea that attempts to take executive power away from the executive branch are unconstitutional.
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2006-02-06 15:46|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2006-02-06 15:46|| Front Page Top

#30 "Why dont all of you e-mail, phone, or whatever form of communication you prefer: Senator Arlen
Specter (REPUBLICAN) and tell HIM to CALL OFF THE HEARINGS..LMAO" No way this is just another opportunity for the Donks to make complete fools of themselves. Leahy and Kennedy (D)runk-MASS look as if they want to protect terrorists FROM our intelligence networks. Nobody except the Koolaid drinkers believe that this program was used for political purposes.
Posted by Cyber Sarge 2006-02-06 15:51||   2006-02-06 15:51|| Front Page Top

#31 Nobody except the Koolaid drinkers believe that this program was used for political purposes.

And, bluntly, when Clinton was doing it, they were fine with it. When Clinton did much worse -- actually gathering data on political opponents, using the IRS to punish critics, etc -- the Koolaid drinkers were silent or approving.

This is all about the (R) behind Bush's name.
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2006-02-06 15:54|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2006-02-06 15:54|| Front Page Top

#32 Mr. Crawford:

From what I am reading (and the article above is
a good example), there is a great debate going on between the U.S. Congress and the White House on this issue. Clearly there is bipartisan concern
within Congress that President Bush is overstepping his authority and if this pattern continues it very well could cause a constitutional crisis. It will be interesting to see where this all leads.
Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-06 16:00||   2006-02-06 16:00|| Front Page Top

#33 aside from the blatherings from CS/Left Angle/Cassaini or whoever it is today the idea of Congress investigating Presidential powers is part of why our constitution works so well. Let them take this to the Supreme court and we will see where the balance of power lies. No worries, I trust the court to see through the politics and define what it takes to defend our nation in time of war.

What makes me sick is these assholes that try to frighten us into believing big brother is monitoring us and going to haul us away for cheating on out diet and eating an extra cookie! Face it folks, big brother is here. You can't drive the streets of LA or Atlanta without being under constant watch. The govt openly admits they are monitoring call from AQ to the US, remember them, Sept 11th, big planes, tall buildings?? They are not monitoring people to see who cheats on taxes, THEY ARE LISTENING TO PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES THAT ARE TALKING TO AL QAEDA!!! This is all Regan's fault for closing the nut houses in California. It's only 16:13 and I need a drink, the stupidity is getting to me. Hats off to the moderators, I would have done more than just nuking the comments to the sink trap.
Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan  2006-02-06 16:13||   2006-02-06 16:13|| Front Page Top

#34 From banal to specious, but always disingenuous. Pfeh.
Posted by .com 2006-02-06 16:21||   2006-02-06 16:21|| Front Page Top

#35 .com

Have you called Sen. Specter yet and told him to call off the hearings?
Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-06 16:24||   2006-02-06 16:24|| Front Page Top

#36 .com, I hope that was for CS.
Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan  2006-02-06 16:27||   2006-02-06 16:27|| Front Page Top

#37 ROFL!

Calling Sen Specter when he's getting TV face time?

LOL. Yeah - as if he would care.

As I said, from banal to specious, but always disingenuous. Pfeh.

Mods - trollboy here is betting you can't discern between pure 100% wank trolling and 100% genuine sincere stupidity, lol. I'd say it's winning.

LOL.
Posted by .com 2006-02-06 16:29||   2006-02-06 16:29|| Front Page Top

#38 Lol, 49pan - you KNOW it was for trollboy, lol.

Now you're trolling for compliments, but I'm game -- your post was excellent, spot-on, and worthy, lol. :-)
Posted by .com 2006-02-06 16:31||   2006-02-06 16:31|| Front Page Top

#39 LOL!! Thanks and keep up the fight! LOL
Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan  2006-02-06 16:34||   2006-02-06 16:34|| Front Page Top

#40 .com: Its all those damn democrats right?

read this genuius..lmao

Domestic spying tests GOP lawmakers' loyalties
By Maura Reynolds

Los Angeles Times


WASHINGTON — Since George W. Bush became president, Republicans in Congress have nearly always marched in lock step with him. In large measure, their clout as lawmakers was enhanced by standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the president.

But that equation may be changing, and a crucial test comes this week when a Senate hearing into Bush's domestic-spying program opens.

The tenor of the hearing rests on a central question: Do the Republicans who control Capitol Hill have greater loyalty to Congress as an institution or to the president who heads their political party?

The National Security Agency (NSA) controversy may be the first of the Bush presidency to place Republicans' roles as lawmakers and politicians so directly in conflict. Some GOP lawmakers have been less vocal than usual in defending the president, a sign that many have not made up their minds which role to put first.

"I think everyone wants to keep an open mind," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a member of the Judiciary and Intelligence committees. "These are difficult issues to resolve."

Domestic surveillance


President Bush has offered two main rationales for the NSA's domestic surveillance program:

His authority as commander-in-chief gives him the inherent right to order such eavesdropping.

When Congress voted to authorize the use of force against al-Qaida, that vote implicitly gave him the right to conduct warrantless domestic spying, overriding any previous legislation.
Critics accuse the president of bypassing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), passed by Congress in 1978, and ordering eavesdropping on U.S. soil without the warrants or judicial review the law requires.

The accusation goes to the heart of the concept of the separation of powers. When, if ever, does the president have the right to ignore or skirt an act of Congress?

As lawmakers, Republicans' instinct would be to protect the prerogatives of the legislative branch, insisting that the president "faithfully execute the laws" of the country, as required by the Constitution. But as members of the GOP, their instinct would be to stand by their president.

So far, both themes can be heard in Republicans' public comments.

"There's lots of case law that indicates that the president can do what he says he's doing, but none of it is Supreme Court law," Hatch said. "There are lots of very great concerns, too, about civil liberties and warrantless surveillance."

The president has offered two main rationales for the surveillance program: First, that his authority as commander-in-chief gives him the inherent right to order such eavesdropping. Second, that when Congress voted to authorize the use of force against al-Qaida, that vote implicitly gave the president the right to conduct warrantless domestic spying, overriding any previous legislation.

The administration sometimes adds a third argument: that even if the 1978 FISA law is relevant, it is outdated and unable to address the demands of the Internet age.

A handful of Republicans have been among those expressing doubt about the validity of those arguments.

"I don't believe from what I've heard ... that he has the authority now to do what he's doing," Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said last week. "Now, maybe he can convince me otherwise, but ... he just can't unilaterally decide that that 1978 law is out of date and he will be the guardian of America and he will violate that law."

Many lawmakers say that if FISA was outdated, the administration's obvious response would be to ask for changes, which the president chose not to do.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the Judiciary committee chairman, suggested that the administration might have acted with the best of intentions but that, rightly or wrongly, the president chose to bypass Congress.

"We're not going to give him a blank check, and just because we're of the same party doesn't mean we're not going to look at this very closely," Specter said.

The controversy strikes a nerve with senators from the GOP's libertarian wing, who banded together late last year to help stall reauthorization of the Patriot Act, the anti-terrorism law passed in response to the Sept. 11 attacks.

"You have a substantial group of genuine conservatives who are very uneasy about 'Big Brother' and who have a long-standing, outspoken drive on privacy issues," said Norman Ornstein, an expert on Congress and head of the American Enterprise Institute think tank. "It doesn't matter who the president is, they don't like the idea of the government looking over people's shoulders.

"I think if you took a secret ballot in the Senate and House, you'd get a majority of Republicans joining on to those [libertarian] concerns," Ornstein said. "But the majority of Republicans in both houses see themselves more as field soldiers in the president's army than as independent actors in an independent branch of government. ... [That group is] very reluctant to challenge their president and to do so in a way that gives Democrats a political issue."

Republicans taking the administration's side of the dispute have begun to speak out more forcefully, arguing that the president did no wrong.

"The fact is, the president not only has the authority, but he has the duty under our Constitution to protect this nation from attack. And he is using all of the authorities that he needs," Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said at a recent news conference with five other GOP senators.

Congress also is gearing up to grapple with whether the administration appropriately fulfilled its obligation to keep Congress informed of intelligence operations.

That question falls more in the jurisdiction of Senate and House intelligence committees, whose chairmen have not yet scheduled public hearings on the controversy. Members of the Senate Committee on Intelligence are set to meet in closed session on Thursday to discuss it.

The president has asserted that "appropriate members" of Congress have been kept informed about the NSA domestic eavesdropping. The administration gave periodic briefings to eight members: the Republican and Democratic leaders of each chamber, plus the chairman and ranking Democrat member of the intelligence committees in both chambers.

Those members were forbidden to discuss the matter with any other members of Congress, or consult with staff members or lawyers, even those with security clearances.

As a result, some lawmakers say the administration's efforts to notify Congress were inadequate.


Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-06 16:35||   2006-02-06 16:35|| Front Page Top

#41 Just post the link, dumbass. El Lay Times, lol. Yup. Paragon of "common sense" and the "left angle".

Have you hit the tip-jar HARD, yet? You sure waste enough bandwidth.

Perhaps the Mods should do it for you if you're not up to it -- or can't reach it.
Posted by .com 2006-02-06 16:39||   2006-02-06 16:39|| Front Page Top

#42 why dont you ask the moderators why they refused to post this article when i submitted it?
Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-06 16:42||   2006-02-06 16:42|| Front Page Top

#43 Lol - I think you just did you disingenuous retard.
Posted by .com 2006-02-06 16:43||   2006-02-06 16:43|| Front Page Top

#44 .com: I'll leave you with this..

its from todays hearing...note Gonzalez deafining silence in response to Sen. Feinsteis question. also sote that SenatorGraham is a Republican.

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), charging that Gonzales had advanced "a radical legal theory here today," asked whether Bush has ever invoked the authority he claims for any program other than the NSA surveillance program.

Gonzales refused to answer.

Sen. Graham told the attorney general, "This statutory force resolution argument that you're making is very dangerous in terms of its application for the future." He added, "When I voted for it, I never envisioned that I was giving to this president or any other president the ability to go around FISA carte blanche."

Graham said that "it would be harder for the next president to get a force resolution if we take this too far. And the exceptions may be a mile long."



Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-06 16:55||   2006-02-06 16:55|| Front Page Top

#45 CS: congress will always mewl and cry when they feel they missed face time on the TV or if tehy feel they're losing ground in teh balance. To cherrypick a few narcissists and idiots and quote from loser leftists is fine, you still haven't changed a single mind here, just wasted Fred's bandwidth with your cutnpaste politics. Let Congress propose this amendment, the backlash among the aware will smack them back to their place. We need 535 armchair CinC's like a hole in the head. Speaking of which, why don't you pick a name and stay with it? Schizophrenia reigns wild at DKos and you're a carrier, apparently
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2006-02-06 17:29||   2006-02-06 17:29|| Front Page Top

#46 " Arlan..suggested that the administration might have acted with the best of intentions but that, rightly or wrongly, the president chose to bypass Congress. I think the Specter is zeroing in on Scottish Law! He's got the 'rightly' part so far....and which one of the brilliant Senators can see 35 States ratifying their Bill of AL Qaeda Rights? Ammendments are tougher than ear marks.
Posted by Inspector Clueso 2006-02-06 17:47||   2006-02-06 17:47|| Front Page Top

#47 I wonder if Hillary would support this amendment?
Posted by gromgoru 2006-02-06 21:01||   2006-02-06 21:01|| Front Page Top

#48 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by wxjames 2006-02-06 07:44||   2006-02-06 07:44|| Front Page Top

#49 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-06 11:19||   2006-02-06 11:19|| Front Page Top

#50 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-06 15:28||   2006-02-06 15:28|| Front Page Top

15:28 Common Sense
11:19 Common Sense
07:44 wxjames
08:31 Chereng Uluper3625
23:12 Alaska Paul
22:57 Capsu78
22:52 trailing wife
22:51 Jake
22:50 Frank G
22:49 bigjim-ky
22:47 Frank G
22:47 Jomort Flainter5376
22:33 Jules
22:33 Capsu78
22:29 Besoeker
22:25 Besoeker
22:21 Jonathan
22:16 C-Low
22:15 RD
22:09 RD
22:09 Steve White
22:08 Jackal
22:06 MacNails
22:02 Besoeker









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com