Obama retakes oath of office after Roberts flub

CNN used the word 'flub' to describe Roberts' rendition of the presidential oath. Good word - I am adopting it.

Epic flub it was, and especially for a Chief Justice. I would like to think that the highest justice of the land would know the oath to which our president is bound... but I guess not.

Or maybe this has finally drilled those words into his head.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama retook his oath of office Wednesday after Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed while delivering it at Tuesday's inauguration.
President Barack Obama takes the oath of office -- his second in two days -- in the White House on Wednesday.

President Barack Obama takes the oath of office -- his second in two days -- in the White House on Wednesday.

The second oath -- also administered by Roberts -- took place at 7:35 p.m. Wednesday in the White House's Map Room. Roberts asked Obama whether he was ready.

"I am, and we're going to do it very slowly," Obama replied.

The do-over was aimed at dispelling any confusion that might arise from Tuesday's take -- in which "faithfully" was said out of sequence -- and erase any question that Obama is legally the president.



In a congressional luncheon after Tuesday's swearing-in, Roberts and Obama exchanged words, and the chief justice appeared to tell the president, "It was my fault."

Before Wednesday's second oath at the White House, Obama, waiting on a couch, joked that "we decided it was so much fun ... "

Though a Bible was used in Tuesday's oath, one was not used for Wednesday's.

After a flawless recitation, Roberts smiled and said, "Congratulations again."
advertisement

"Thank you, sir," the president replied. After a smattering of applause, Obama quipped that "the bad news for the [press] pool is there's 12 more balls."

And yes media talking heads -- who during the ceremony said that it was 'only a formality' -- yes, the oath is much more than a formality (you idiots.) How can you say the oath of office is only a formality?

Listening to you empty-media-heads is what lead people astray in the 2000 election, when you said the best qualification of a president was to be that guy you'd like to have a beer with in the neighborhood bar. NO! The qualifications of a president include a sharp intelligence, a grasp of history, a good knowledge of foreign affairs, humility, ethics, compassion, dedication to the people of this nation and dedication to the Constitution. Beer is NOWHERE in the picture.

As for the importance of the oath of office: this is where our president swears to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. Well, at least Joe Biden swore to defend it from all enemies foreign and domestic, which is the traditional oath. It appears to have been modified a bit for the president, which I don't understand... but I believe that Constitutional lawyer President Obama will defend our Constitution and over-rule the previous attacks that have been waged against it by our 43rd president. Bush and Cheney proved to be a grave domestic threat to our Constitution. So yes, I'd say the oath - those words - are pretty damn important.

Now if only there were consequences for the way the oath was violated by the last administration.

A. Lincoln: Concerning the Greater Good

Dear President Bush:

At the behest of my late friend and fellow Hoosier (yes we also claim him) Abraham Lincoln -- I believe you would know him as a former occupant of your current residence, The White House -- I am sitting before this keyboard to offer his reflections on your historic unpopularity.



It has been over a year since we last collaborated on a correspondence. Alas, Congress showed little interest in our concerns about the sad state of democracy in this country, or the war in Iraq.

However, with the recent election of former constitutional law professor and current Senator from Illinois Barack Obama, Mr. Lincoln is greatly encouraged and has expressed his hope for the future of our beleaguered nation.

And so Mr. Lincoln and I have determined that the time is right for the drafting of this humble letter. It is our shared and earnest hope that you will soon desist - at least for the remainder of your administration - from any further breaches of the public trust.

Mr. Lincoln has assured me that he is quite familiar with unpopularity, as it is experienced by one in your position. He has suggested that displeasure over 'this action' or 'that word' is quite common when serving a nation of often competing interests with conflicting passions and needs.

However he wishes to advise -- if you would but hear him out -- that there are some truths, some ideological lines that must never be crossed. A president must uphold his oath to serve and protect the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Lincoln finds your determination to cross -- no, to completely obliterate these lines -- reprehensible. He also finds your shocking disrespect for that "goddamned piece of paper," which We The People revere as our beloved Constitution, to be unworthy of your office.

And so Mr. Lincoln is requesting but a few minutes of your time to make the case that your disregard for our Constitution, and your deliberate flouting of our nation's Rule Of Law are the rank and stinking rot that fester at the heart of your abysmal approval rating among the citizens of this nation.

My words are only an introduction; I will let Mr. Lincoln take it from here (his words will be notated in blockquotes.)

Dear Sir:

My great concern is not whether you have failed, but whether you are content with your failure.[1]

There are no accidents in my philosophy. Every effect must have its cause. The past is the cause of the present, and the present will be the cause of the future. All these are links in the endless chain stretching from the finite to the infinite.[2]

I have borne a laborious, and, in some respects to myself, a painful part in the contest [the war between the States.] Through all, I have neither assailed, nor wrestled with any part of the Constitution.[3]

I freely acknowledge myself the servant of the people, according to the bond of service -- the United States Constitution; and that, as such, I am responsible to them.[4]

I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act.[5]

It was in the oath I took that I would, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. I could not take the office without taking the oath. Nor was it my view that I might take an oath to get power, and break the oath in using the power.[6]

We find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions, conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty, than any of which the history of former times tells us. We, when mounting the stage of existence, found ourselves the legal inheritors of these fundamental blessings.

We toiled not in the acquirement or establishment of them---they are a legacy bequeathed us, by a once hardy, brave, and patriotic, but now lamented and departed race of ancestors. Their's was the task (and nobly they performed it) to possess themselves, and through themselves, us, of this goodly land; and to uprear upon its hills and its valleys, a political edifice of liberty and equal rights; 'tis ours only, to transmit these, the former, unprofaned by the foot of an invader; the latter, undecayed by the lapse of time, and untorn by usurpation---to the latest generation that fate shall permit the world to know. This task of gratitude to our fathers, justice to ourselves, duty to posterity, and love for our species in general, all imperatively require us faithfully to perform.

How, then, shall we perform it? At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.[7]

Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is, that if it shall become necessary, to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line, and invade the teritory of another country; and that whether such necessity exists in any given case, the President is to be the sole judge.

Before going further, consider well whether this is, or is not your position.

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose---and you allow him to make war at pleasure.

Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us'' but he will say to you "be silent; I see it, if you don't.''

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object.

This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.[8]

Has it [popular sovereignty] not got down as thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death?[9]

The question of Revenue we will now briefly consider.

For several years past, the revenues of the Government have been unequal to its expenditures, and consequently, loan after loan, sometimes directly, and sometimes indirectly in form, have been resorted to. By this means a new National debt, has been created, and is still growing on us with a rapidity fearful to contemplate---a rapidity only reasonably to be expected in time of war.

This state of things has been produced by a prevailing unwillingness, either to increase the tariff, or resort to direct taxation. But the one or the other must come. Coming expenditures must be met, and the present debt must be paid; and money cannot always be borrowed for these objects.

The system of loans is but temporary in its nature, and must soon explode. It is a system, not only ruinous while it lasts, but one that must soon fail and leave us destitute. As an individual who undertakes to live by borrowing, soon finds his original means devoured by interest, and next no one left to borrow from---so must it be with a government.[10]

What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling sea coasts, the guns of our war steamers, or the strength of our gallant and disciplined army. These are not our reliance against a resumption of tyranny in our fair land. All of them may be turned against our liberties, without making us stronger or weaker for the struggle.

Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms. Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, every where. Destroy this spirit, and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors.

Familiarize yourselves with the chains of bondage, and you are preparing your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on the rights of those around you, you have lost the genius of your own independence, and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises.[11]

I know the American People are much attached to their Government;---I know they would suffer much for its sake;---I know they would endure evils long and patiently, before they would ever think of exchanging it for another.

Yet, notwithstanding all this, if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property, are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affections from the Government is the natural consequence; and to that, sooner or later, it must come. [12].

Let us then turn this government back into the channel in which the framers of the Constitution originally placed it.[13]

There is a spirit in the people, sometimes slumbering, but never extinct, which, when thoroughly aroused by usurpation or tyranny, will overwhelm the usurper and his devices in an undistinguished ruin; nor can they long escape this generous indignation, who prostitute the power bestowed by the people to unworthy ends or selfish purposes.[14]

I believe you do not mean to be unjust, or ungenerous; and I, therefore am slow to believe that you will not yet think better and think differently of this matter.[15]

Yours truly,



(Cross-posted on ePluribus and Daily Kos)

McCain Adviser Pfotenhauer "not a constitutional scholar"

Nancy Pfotenhauer hasn't read the Constitution.

Chris Matthews has read it. I've read it (and I'm not in politics.) Kucinich carries a pocket copy around in his pocket.

I suppose many neoconservatives don't bother to read the Constitution anymore; their commander in chief has done everything in his vastly expanded power to undermine it's legality during his two terms. Besides... it's just a piece of paper. Right?

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I never understood how this incident was allowed to slide.

Bush swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Americans have been dying for centuries to protect the rights laid out in this sacred document that defines our very democracy and our rights as citizens.

But of course, everything was allowed to slide.

And so we have yet another round of constitutionally-ignorant Republicans who somehow believe they are qualified to lead this once great democracy... right over the cliff.

Bruce Fein: Rethinking U.S. Role

Constitutional Lawyer and former member of the Reagan Administration, Bruce Fein, has written an excellent commentary in the Washington Times.

For those (like myself) who have heard Fein speak over the years, these arguments are not new. For those who appreciate his grasp of history, his fiery defense of our Constitution and adherence to the intentions of our forefathers, Fein's words are always refreshing.

FEIN: Rethinking US Role:

By Bruce Fein
Tuesday, September 16, 2008

COMMENTARY:

If the United States neglects to rethink its purpose informed by the genius and practice of the Founding Fathers, it is destined to self-destruct like every other empire from hubris and overreach. At present, the Republic is undergoing a metamorphosis into executive despotism featuring escalating taxes and permanent warfare because of staggering ignorance of the nation's birth certificate among officeholders, candidates and the public.

The Constitution's preamble explains that the national interest of the United States lies in providing for the "common defense" and "secur[ing] the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." The Founding Fathers denied that the United States was saddled with either a moral or legal responsibility to implant freedom throughout the planet.

None ever hinted at a national duty to overthrow the French Bourbons, the Russian Romanovs, or the Ottoman Sultans. Nor did they believe Americans would be made either safer or freer by attempting to cram American democracy down the throats of feudalistic, tribal, sectarian or autocratic foreign political cultures, for example, Afghanistan, Iraq, Russia or China. The exercise would be futile because the knowledge needed to pluck the flower of democracy from the nettle of longstanding tyranny is beyond human grasp.

Further, these utopian larks would make Americans less safe and less free. Military interventions abroad make enemies by the inevitable killing of innocent civilians in pursuit of actual enemies. Think of the mounting "collateral damage" deaths in Afghanistan or Iraq. Resentments are also awakened by the insult to national dignity implicit in American military bases or occupation forces - a variation of "The Ugly American" by Eugene Burdick and William Lederer.

In addition, the trillions of dollars squandered in foreign military frolics subtract from fashioning a virtually invulnerable defense posture at home earmarked by spy satellites and aircraft, anti-missile systems, submarines, upgraded border security, sophisticated intelligence collection, and a credible threat to destroy any enemy nation with the audacity to attack.

Finally, the military exertions necessary to effectuate an endless American crusade for democracy abroad would be the death knell of the republic. War endows the president with invincible power at home. He controls the public record of information through selective disclosures of classified intelligence. He awards military honors and contracts. And he commands popular political support by exploiting the natural patriotism and fears of Americans that he manufactures by logarithmically inflating foreign threats.

A president with unchecked authority spies on political opponents, flouts the rule of law, cripples the congressional power of oversight, and, arbitrarily detains, harasses or punishes citizens or noncitizens alike on his say-so alone.

In sum, the United States would have become a mirror of the tyranny that provoked the Declaration of Independence if its mission was the global expansion of liberty.

President Bush epitomizes the light years the United States has traveled from its more modest founding purpose and the Constitution's injunctions. Bob Woodward reports in his new book "The War Within": "The opportunity to spread freedom throughout the globe, and particularly in the broader Middle East and in the Muslim world," [Bush's National Security Adviser Stephen] Hadley said that day, "that is, I think for the president, the defining idea of his presidency... it is not only a sort of moral duty, it's not only consistent with our principles, it's consistent with our interests, it's actually essential for our national security. ... For liberty to be secure at home, liberty has to be on the march abroad. Big stuff. Not big. Huge." But President Bush's ambitions are also delusional, ill-founded and extra-constitutional.

Not a syllable in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence, however, suggests the president has either the duty or authority to carry freedom to the four corners of the Earth. And Mr. Bush's concoction of a moral obligation is unconvincing. The United States did not create the dictatorships, autocracies or lawlessness that afflict Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Ethiopia or Syria. It is not morally bound to relieve afflictions it did not create.

Further, that messianic task would contradict the nation's principles as expounded by the Founding Fathers. Then Secretary of State John Quincy Adams in his July 4, 1821, address amplified: "[The United States] has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings. ... She goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. ... She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit."

In addition, liberty in the United States can thrive irrespective of foreign dictators or despots. The suppression of human rights in Burma, Venezuela, Iran or North Korea does not undermine enforcement of the Bill of Rights.

To be sure, nations that honor democracy are less likely to attack the United States. But nondemocracies can be deterred by the threat of incineration a la Hiroshima or Nagasaki coupled with enhanced defense technologies and intelligence. Moreover, the United States does not know how to evolve democracies from political cultures barren of democratic DNA.

Alarming theories of national purpose and interests are propounded by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the 2008 Republican and Democratic Party contenders for the White House. Those grandiose ideas clearly demonstrate the quartet would have been Tories opposed to the American Revolution. They would have been denied admission to the ranks of the Minutemen as fifth columnists. They would have been excluded from the Constitutional Convention as unfit. None can be trusted to recapture the republican principles of the Founding Fathers needed to frustrate executive despotism.

Bruce Fein is a constitutional lawyer with Bruce Fein & Associates, Inc. and author of "Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for our Constitution and Democracy" (Palgrave Macmillan).

Russ Feingold: Statement on Constitution Day 2008

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On Constitution Day 2008

September 17, 2008

On this day in 1787, our founding fathers signed the Constitution, making us a nation of laws, not of men. The basic concepts of justice, liberty, and inherent human rights outlined in that founding document, are at the very foundation of our strength as a nation.

But 221 years later, the United States is facing one of the darkest chapters in its Constitutional history. The Bush Administration has treated the Constitution and rule of law with disrespect unparalleled in our nation’s history. The list of this administration’s assaults on the Constitution is breathtaking: it includes the warrantless wiretapping program, its interrogation policy and justifications for the use of torture, its extreme positions on the legal status of detainees that have been repeatedly rejected by the Supreme Court, and its refusal to recognize and cooperate with Congress' constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight. This is a shameful legacy that must be undone in the years to come.

On Constitution Day, we should also recognize that supporting the rule of law here at home can help to strengthen democratic institutions around the world that are critical to peace and stability – and, in turn, to our own national security. Right now, countries like Pakistan and Zimbabwe are grappling with their own constitutional crises. But we cannot be a credible example for nations like these if we allow our own Constitution to erode. The disparity between our words and our actions undermines our ability to defend the rights and freedoms of peoples around the world.

Our next president will face a difficult challenge. He must repair the wreckage the current administration has left, which means renouncing some of the powers the current President tried to amass as he turned a blind eye to the rule of law and separation of powers. No president will want to limit his own power. But if we are to be the nation our founders envisioned when they gathered in Philadelphia more than two centuries ago, we must work together – across party lines and at all levels of government – to protect and defend our Constitution and restore the rule of law.

It's Constitution Day

On this very day in 1787 our founding fathers signed the United States Constitution: making us a nation of laws, not simply of men and women.

The basic concepts of justice, liberty, and inherent human rights written carefully and with much thought into that founding document are the foundation of our democracy.

No foreign war will ever make us free; we are supposed to be free now. No foreign war will ever keep us free. It is our job as American citizens to keep ourselves and future generations free by keeping a watchful eye on our government and elected leaders so that our democracy never dissolves into tyranny. Our national 'watchdog' media has thrown off this sacred responsibility: we as citizens cannot.

The document that made us free - and will keep us free - is the Constitution of the United States.

Anyone who attacks that Constitution or in any way undermines it, or our rights as American citizens as outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - especially in the guise of 'keeping us free' or keeping us safe - is betraying the very principles on which this nation was founded.

They are also trying to overthrow our democracy.

The Constitution of the United States of America: Learn it, love it, protect it. It protects you.

Russ Feingold on restoring our Constitution

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) spoke yesterday in a special hearing to address how we can repair the damage done by the Bush-Cheney administration to the system of checks and balances and to our fundamental liberties as Americans.

Seems like the perfect opportunity for our presidential candidates to demonstrate their interest in change.

But as John Nichols pointed out in The Nation, neither party's presidential candidate - Obama or McCain - was there. Nor did either make any statement today acknowledging Constitution Day, and the ravages that have been inflicted on our Constitution by the current administration (Mr. Obama - my God - how many opportunities do you plan to miss?)

As a voting American citizen, I'd sure like to know... why weren't they there? This new 'Unitary Executive' that Bush and Cheney have created somehow isn't relevant to the future president?

It certainly is relevant to us.

If the national media had done its job in their seemingly endless and empty candidate debates, our current candidates' plans concerning our former system of checks and balances would be known to us.

How strange that we are facing a national election with absolutely no idea what either candidate plans to do to restore our Constitution once he assumes the nations' highest office - resplendent with all of its new kingly powers. Or perhaps we will one day have... a queen? Of course Palin didn't make a statement either (must not have been her day to speak with the media.)

Independent candidate Ralph Nader took the opportunity today to issue a video statement blasting both parties for failing to protect our constitutional rights as citizens; he even mentions our media crisis, and calls on American citizens to 'be the media ourselves.'

Constitution Subcommittee chair Senator Russ Feingold said the following at yesterday's call to action:

Tomorrow, September 17, is the 221st anniversary of the day in 1787 when 39 members of the Constitutional Convention signed the Constitution in Philadelphia. It is a sad fact as we approach that anniversary that for the past seven and a half years, and especially since 9/11, the Bush Administration has treated the Constitution and the rule of law with a disrespect never before seen in the history of this country. By now, the public can be excused for being almost numb to new revelations of government wrongdoing and overreaching. The catalogue is breathtaking, even when immensely complicated and far reaching programs and events are reduced to simple catch phrases: torture, Guantanamo, ignoring the Geneva Conventions, warrantless wiretapping, data mining, destruction of emails, U.S. Attorney firings, stonewalling of congressional oversight, abuse of the state secrets doctrine and executive privilege, secret abrogation of executive orders, signing statements. This is a shameful legacy that will haunt our country for years to come.

There can be no dispute that the rule of law is central to our democracy and our system of government. But what does ‘the rule of law' really mean? Well, as Thomas Paine said in 1776: ‘In America, the law is king.' That, of course, was a truly revolutionary concept at a time when the King, quite literally, was the law.

Over 200 years later, we still must struggle to fulfill Paine's simply stated vision. It is not always easy, nor is it something that once done need not be carefully maintained. Justice Frankfurter wrote that law:

is an enveloping and permeating habituation of behavior, reflecting the counsels of reason on the part of those entrusted with power in reconciling the pressures of conflicting interests. Once we conceive ‘the rule of law' as embracing the whole range of presuppositions on which government is conducted . . ., the relevant question is not, has it been achieved, but, is it conscientiously and systematically pursued.

The post-September 11th period is not, of course, the first time that events have caused great stress for the checks and balances of our system of government. As Berkeley law professors Daniel Farber and Anne Joseph O'Connell write in testimony submitted for this hearing: ‘The greatest constitutional crisis in our history came with the Civil War, which tested the nature of the Union, the scope of presidential power, and the extent of liberty that can survive in war time.' But as legal scholar Louis Fisher of the Library of Congress describes in his testimony, President Lincoln pursued a much different approach than our current President when he believed he needed to act in an extra-constitutional manner to save the Union. He acted openly, and sought Congress's participation and ultimately approval of his actions. According to Dr. Fisher:

[Lincoln] took actions we are all familiar with, including withdrawing funds from the Treasury without an appropriation, calling up the troops, placing a blockade on the South, and suspending the writ of habeas corpus. In ordering those actions, Lincoln never claimed to be acting legally or constitutionally and never argued that Article II somehow allowed him to do what he did. Instead, Lincoln admitted to exceeding the constitutional boundaries of his office and therefore needed the sanction of Congress.... He recognized that the superior lawmaking body was Congress, not the President.

Each era brings its own challenges to the conscientious and systematic pursuit of the rule of law. How the leaders of our government respond to those challenges at the time they occur is, of course, critical. But recognizing that leaders do not always perform perfectly, that not every President is an Abraham Lincoln, the years that follow a crisis are perhaps even more important. And soon, this Administration will be over. So the obvious question is: ‘Where do we go from here?' I believe that one of the most important things that the next President must do, whoever he may be, is take immediate and concrete steps to restore the rule of law in this country. He must make sure that the excesses of this Administration don't become so ingrained in our system that they change the very notion of what the law is.

That, of course, is much easier said than done. It's not simply a matter of a new President saying, ‘Ok, I won't do that anymore.' This President's transgressions are so deep and the damage to our system of government so extensive that a concerted effort from the executive and legislative branches will be needed. And that means the new President will, in some respects, have to go against his institutional interests.

That is why I called this hearing - to hear from legal and historical experts on how the next President should go about tackling the wreckage that this President will leave. I've asked our two panels of experts who will testify to be forward-looking - to not only review what has gone wrong in the past seven or eight years, but to address very specifically what needs to be set right starting next year and how to go about doing it.

In addition to the testimony of the witnesses here today, I solicited written testimony from advocates, law professors, historians and other experts. So far we have received nearly two dozen submissions from a host of national groups and distinguished individuals. I want to thank each and every person who made the effort to prepare testimony for this hearing. You have done the country a real service.

All of this testimony will be included in the written record of the hearing, which I plan to present to the incoming Administration. The submissions we have received so far can be seen on my website at feingold.senate.gov. I hope that many of these recommendations, along with the testimony we will hear today, will serve as a blueprint for the new President so that he can get started right away on this immense and extremely important job of restoring the rule of law.

In a video interview (sound only) Senator Feingold made basically the same statement last week:

Honest to God?

Did McCain really say this?

From truthout.org:

"The Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation," declared John McCain back in September 2007.

If he did (and I'm guessing the writer didn't make it up,) then perhaps McCain should crack a few history books and delve into the writings of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson - the actual authors of the Constitution.

John Adams:

“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.” - John Adams

“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion” - John Adams (from the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams and unanimously endorsed by the Senate.)

Thomas Jefferson:

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." - Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom


"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802


"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." - Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.


"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

Sorry Mr. McCain. I'd feel a lot better about your candidacy if I thought you'd even read the Constitution. Clearly you have no grasp of its contents, or of the intentions of its authors.

This is not a 'Christian' country. This is a country that welcomes Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Pagans and anything else a person can dream up to worship. This is a nation founded on freedom of religion, and made up of a tapestry of religious beliefs.

Every first-grader learns this stuff.

Here they come again

This from the ACLU; the guys who keep fighting for our Constitutional rights in the courts -- while Congress is lunching with lobbyists:

Attorney General Michael Mukasey is demanding that Congress issue a new declaration of war so that anyone that this president or the next one declares to be an "enemy combatant" can be held indefinitely without a trial.

The new declaration of war would make the entire globe — including the United States itself — a “battlefield” where the president decides who will be locked up forever.

With only five weeks left in the Congressional schedule and only six months left in the Bush presidency, Mukasey’s ridiculous power grab should be laughed out of town. But given this Congress’ track record, the Mukasey proposal is no laughing matter. Especially because it also includes a cover-up of the Bush administration’s systemic torture and abuse of detainees.

We can’t take for granted that Congress will reject this outrageous proposal. We have to meet it with an immediate wall of protest that says to Congress: “Don’t you dare.”

Once again, I contacted my Representative and told him to reject this latest power grab by Bush and Mukasey.

You can do the same thing here.

Another day... another power grab. They just keep coming. Its a bit like playing 'Space Invaders,' with our freedom on the line.

Feingold stands up for the Constitution

I teased some of my colleagues and said we can celebrate the Constitution on July 4th and maybe when we come back you'll decide not to tear it up. -Russ Feingold on FISA

I didn't write when the House passed their unthinkable FISA capitulation to Bush and the telecoms - so unthinkable that even my own Blue Dog Congressman opposed it:

On June 20, 2008, the House voted on the FISA Amendments Act. This bill passed the House by a recorded vote of 293 - 129. I voted against this bill, as it contains provisions that would allow for retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies and allow the President to declare what is lawful and what is not. I have strong reservations against removing the checks and balances currently in our government by effectively removing the judicial branch from the decision as to whether or not the warrantless surveillance program was lawful.

- Baron Hill, in a letter to concerned constituents

I didn't write about this Constitutional horror when it passed the Senate - even as Feingold and Chris Dodd tried to block it with a filibuster.

I have come to the conclusion now, that it is really useless to write. They own us, guys.

We are now owned - lock, stock and barrel - by corporate America. The Constitution, as King George himself was purported to have said, is "just a piece of paper."

While our troops are supposedly fighting for 'freedom' and 'democracy' overseas in Iraq - and Iraqis call it an occupation - no one is defending our own freedom and democracy here at home. From tyranny.

Well, no one save a few: Kucinich, Feingold and Dodd.

Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have sold out. It appears a great majority of the Democrats in power have sold out.

They have sold out to the thousands of lobbyists now working right next to them in D.C., and with much more access and money than we will ever know. These days, representation costs money. We apparently don't have it, so we are of no consequence and the looting of our public coffers will continue - along with this war, the spying, and the corruption - unabated.

This administration's crimes are already much worse than Watergate - everybody knows it, and no one will touch it. The newspapers won't even write about it. Is that a democracy?

The Government of the People, by the People and for the People has perished from the Earth.

The only questions now before us are how the whole thing is going to cave in around us... and when?

See you in September

Reid: Senate Will Explore Long-Term Fixes To FISA In September

Washington, D.C.—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent the following letter today to Senators Jay Rockefeller and Pat Leahy, encouraging them to develop long-term modernizations to FISA that better serve our national security interests than the law signed by President Bush this month:

August 14, 2007

The Honorable John D. Rockefeller IV
Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Jay and Pat:

On August 3rd the Senate passed and on August 5th President Bush signed legislation (Public Law 110-55) providing temporary six-month changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in light of the Director of National Intelligence’s expressed concerns about a recently-emerged gap in foreign counterterrorism intelligence collection. This issue was given even greater urgency because of the recently-published National Intelligence Estimate on the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland, which indicates that, after six years of Bush Administration counterterrorism efforts, the threat to the homeland today from Al Qaeda is nearly as great as it was before 9/11.

I know both of you share my disappointment at the process that led to passage of the recent law, and at the flawed outcome itself, which you and I and many others strongly opposed. The temporary authorities in the new law will sunset in six months. While these temporary authorities are in effect, I support all efforts by your two committees to conduct vigorous and comprehensive oversight of their implementation.

I also know that your committees have been working exhaustively on sound options for a longer-term change to FISA, even though your work has been hindered by lack of cooperation from the Administration in providing relevant information. When the Senate reconvenes in September, I fully support your committees working expeditiously together and in a bipartisan manner to develop a longer-term statutory change that better serves American national security interests and comports with the Constitution and proper judicial and congressional oversight. I would like to see the full Senate consider as soon as possible a bill reported by your committees that addresses the deficiencies in the recently-enacted law and any other matter you believe must be addressed.

Thank you for your leadership on these matters.

Sincerely,


HARRY REID

Uh huh.

Hey Harry, look! Our own military spy satellites have now been turned on us!

Until now, only a handful of federal civilian agencies, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the U.S. Geological Survey, have had access to the most basic spy-satellite imagery, and only for the purpose of scientific and environmental study.

--- snip ---

Access to the high-tech surveillance tools would, for the first time, allow Homeland Security and law-enforcement officials to see real-time, high-resolution images and data, which would allow them, for example, to identify smuggler staging areas, a gang safehouse, or possibly even a building being used by would-be terrorists to manufacture chemical weapons.

--- snip ---

Coming on the back of legislation that upgraded the administration's ability to wiretap terrorist suspects without warrants, the development is likely to heat up debate about the balance between civil liberties and national security.

--- snip ---

In recent years, some military experts have questioned whether domestic use of such satellites would violate the Posse Comitatus Act. The act bars the military from engaging in law-enforcement activity inside the U.S., and the satellites were predominantly built for and owned by the Defense Department.

According to Pentagon officials, the government has in the past been able to supply information from spy satellites to federal law-enforcement agencies, but that was done on a case-by-case basis and only with special permission from the president.

Even the architects of the current move are unclear about the legal boundaries. A 2005 study commissioned by the U.S. intelligence community, which recommended granting access to the spy satellites for Homeland Security, noted: "There is little if any policy, guidance or procedures regarding the collection, exploitation and dissemination of domestic MASINT." MASINT stands for Measurement and Signatures Intelligence, a particular kind of information collected by spy satellites which would for the first time become available to civilian agencies.

According to defense experts, MASINT uses radar, lasers, infrared, electromagnetic data and other technologies to see through cloud cover, forest canopies and even concrete to create images or gather data.

Thanks guys! Should I now wave at the sky every time I go outside to water my tomatoes? Offer the sky a tomato? A cookie? Thank the sky for keeping me safe? Apologize to the sky for the fact that I didn't shower and brush my hair before watering the tomatoes; and that perhaps my appearance in my own yard isn't spiffy and presentable?

You senators have done so much for me -- I'm just not sure how I could ever repay you. Never in our history has a presidential administration - with the capitulation of an opposition congress - done so much to undermine the rights and privacy of the American people. I'm truly honored to have lived to see your historic precedence.

In fact, I feel a song coming on...



See you in September (by Harry Reid & the Senators!)

I'll be awake each and every night
While you're away, I'm afraid to write

Bye-bye, so long, farewell
Bye-bye, so long

See you in September
See you when the summer's through
Here we are (4th amendment, goodbye)
Saying goodbye via FISA (Constitution, goodbye)
Congressional vacation (4th amendment, goodbye)
Is taking you away (Constitution, goodbye)

We were free once but remember
There is danger in the summer moon above
Will I see you in September
Or lose you to a summer vote
(counting the days 'til I'll be with you)
(counting the hours and the minutes, too)

4th amendment, goodbye
Constitution, goodbye
4th amendment, goodbye (bye-bye, so long, farewell)
Constitution, goodbye (bye-bye, so long)

We were free once but remember
There is danger in the summer moon above
Will I see you in September
Or lose you to a summer vote
(I'll be awake each and every night)
(While you're away, I'm afraid to write)

See you (bye-bye, so long, farewell)
In September (bye-bye, so long, farewell)
I'm hopin' I'll
See you (bye-bye, so long, farewell)
In September (bye-bye, so long, farewell)
Well, maybe I'll
See you (bye-bye, so long, farewell)
In September (bye-bye, so long, farewell)

Today's poll on the WSJ:

How well does the U.S. balance national security with individual liberty?

Leans too far toward security Leans too far toward liberty Balances them about right 6307 votes (76%) 917 votes (11%) 1097 votes (13%)

Guantanamo lawyers challenge constitutionality of FISA bill

Because you see... the fourth amendment really is worth fighting for.

From Think Progress:

Yesterday, lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees asked a federal judge in San Francisco to invalidate the recently-passed FISA law that lets the Bush administration conduct warrantless surveillance on suspected terrorists without first getting court-approved warrants.

"We are asking your honor, as swiftly as possible, to declare this statute unconstitutional,” said Michael Avery, a lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights. … “Neither Congress nor the president has the power to repeal the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirements,"Avery said.

In CCR v. Bush, the lawyers argue that the government’s surveillance program is jeopardizing their ability to represent their clients, all detainees at Guantanamo. The Center for Constitutional Rights reports that they have made thousands of telephone calls and sent many e-mails to people outside the United States in the course of their clients' representation - and that all are now subject to warrantless spying:

The Center writes, “Given that the government has accused many of CCR’s overseas clients of being associated with Al Qaeda or of being of interest to the 9/11 investigation, there is little question that these attorneys fall within the likely range of victims of the NSA Surveillance Program.” CCR Executive Director Vincent Warren said:

It is virtually certain that the NSA spied on our confidential communications with our clients as well as conversations with other American attorneys outside of the U.S. The president violated his oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of this nation and instead secretly broke the law for years to spy on Americans. He has taken an axe to the Constitution.

Will the Constitution and the good lawyers win out against the awe-wielding president and his Congressional enablers? Is the presiding judge still a 'real judge,' or another RNC partisan operative? Film at 11! New information coming into the Situation Room all the time! (Well, I'm guessing this won't be one of the 'breaking items' they will be covering... it's too close to real news.)

Whither the rule of law in the good Ol' USA?

Yours truly, A. Lincoln

As I have had no luck at all in my frequent correspondences with my congressman and senators, I have finally come to the sad conclusion that I am simply not important enough, and my opinion is of no consequence.

In light of my apparent uselessness, I approached my late friend Abraham Lincoln and have asked him if he might use his considerable respect, leverage and mastery of the English language to write a letter to Congress on my behalf.

Due to his... inability to use a keyboard, and slight confusion as to the workings of the internets, I have offered to take this letter down as dictation, and he has allowed me the option of slipping in a few words of my own: the agreement being that I attribute his own words via use of

blockquotes.

Sincerely, feduphoosier

_____________________________________________



Gentlemen and Ladies of the Congress:

It is with great regret that dictate this letter to you, in this time of national upheaval and constitutional crisis. I cannot watch your current actions without extending my deepest concern and indeed, a dire warning.

You must protect the Constitution; this is not optional. You must protect the rule of law; you have sworn to do so with your oaths of office, before the citizens and before God.

Your unconscionable sacking of the Constitution, and the unalienable rights of each American citizen to protect his and her own privacy, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches: these protections are guaranteed by the fourth amendment of the Constitution, which you have sworn to uphold. Your rushed passage of the recent FISA bill was a grievous blow to the rule of law and justice in this land.

You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.

What I shall say upon this head, I design exclusively for the law-loving and law-abiding part of the House. To those who claim omnipotence for the Legislature, and who in the plenitude of their assumed powers, are disposed to disregard the Constitution, law, good faith, moral right, and every thing else, I have not a word to say.

I frequently make mistakes myself, in the many things I am compelled to do hastily.

Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time.

My great concern is not whether you have failed, but whether you are content with your failure.

Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.

I have borne a laborious, and, in some respects to myself, a painful part in the contest [the war between the States.] Through all, I have neither assailed, nor wrestled with any part of the Constitution.

I freely acknowledge myself the servant of the people, according to the bond of service -- the United States Constitution; and that, as such, I am responsible to them.

I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act.

It was in the oath I took that I would, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. I could not take the office without taking the oath. Nor was it my view that I might take an oath to get power, and break the oath in using the power.

It often requires more courage to dare to do right than to fear to do wrong.

Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling sea coasts, the guns of our war steamers, or the strength of our gallant and disciplined army.

These are not our reliance against a resumption of tyranny in our fair land. All of them may be turned against our liberties, without making us stronger or weaker for the struggle.

Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms. Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, every where. Destroy this spirit, and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.

When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.

I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill-omen amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgement of Courts; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice. This disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be a violation of truth, and an insult to our intelligence, to deny.

I know the American People are much attached to their Government;---I know they would suffer much for its sake;---I know they would endure evils long and patiently, before they would ever think of exchanging it for another. Yet, notwithstanding all this, if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property, are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affections from the Government is the natural consequence; and to that, sooner or later, it must come.

Has it [popular sovereignty] not got down as thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death?

I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.

Let us then turn this government back into the channel in which the framers of the Constitution originally placed it.

Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others.

As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;---let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children's liberty.

Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap---let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges;---let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;---let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice.

And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.

The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just.

I know not how to aid you, save in the assurance of one of mature age, and much severe experience, that you can not fail, if you resolutely determine, that you will not.

The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.

Yours truly,

Epic 'Blue Dog' betrayal of our Constitution

41 House Democrats voted today to roll over, pant, beg for a bone and pass Bush's eavesdropping amendment. 30 were Blue Dogs.

One of them was mine.

The bill, with a typical neocon opposite-of-the-truth name -- the 'Protect America Act' -- passed 227-183, with 181 true Democrats and two Republicans opposed.

My hat is off to the two Republicans. You proved yourselves more loyal to your nation than these simpering Blue Dogs.

Democratic traitors to our Constitution include:

Jason Altmire (4th Pennsylvania)
John Barrow (12th Georgia) Blue Dog
Melissa Bean (8th Illinois) Blue Dog
Dan Boren (2nd Oklahoma) Blue Dog
Leonard Boswell (3rd Iowa)
Allen Boyd (2nd Florida) Blue Dog
Christopher Carney (10th Pennsylvania) Blue Dog
Ben Chandler (6th Kentucky) Blue Dog
Rep. Jim Cooper (5th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Jim Costa (20th California) Blue Dog
Bud Cramer (5th Alabama) Blue Dog
Henry Cuellar (28th Texas)
Artur Davis (7th Alabama)
Lincoln Davis (4th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Joe Donnelly (2nd Indiana) Blue Dog
Don Edwards (16th California)
Brad Ellsworth (8th Indiana) Blue Dog
Bob Etheridge (North Carolina)
Bart Gordon (6th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (South Dakota) Blue Dog
Brian Higgins (27th New York)
Baron Hill (9th Indiana) Blue Dog
Nick Lampson (23rd Texas) Blue Dog
Daniel Lipinski (3rd Illinois)
Jim Marshall (8th Georgia) Blue Dog
Jim Matheson (2nd Utah) Blue Dog
Mike McIntyre (7th North Carolina) Blue Dog
Charlie Melancon (3rd Louisiana) Blue Dog
Harry Mitchell (5th Arizona)
Colin Peterson (7th Minnesota) Blue Dog
Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota) Blue Dog
Ciro Rodriguez (23rd Texas) Blue Dog
Mike Ross (4th Arkansas) Blue Dog
John Salazar (3rd Colorado) Blue Dog
Heath Shuler (11th North Carolina) Blue Dog
Vic Snyder (2nd Arkansas)
Zachary Space (18th Ohio) Blue Dog
John Tanner (8th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Gene Taylor (4th Mississippi) Blue Dog
Timothy Walz (1st Minnesota)
Charles A. Wilson (6th Ohio) Blue Dog

Obviously Bush and Cheney have these 'representatives' on a short leash. Perhaps Bush threatened to withhold their Greenies. Maybe Cheney was threatening to keep them from their Kibbles n Bits. We'll never know. Maybe they were just... afraid.

And what exactly have we the people lost with this latest betrayal of our trust? What constitutional rights have been sold out from under us by these 'Democrats' we sent to represent us? Marty Lederman at Balkination:

The key provision of S.1927 is new section 105A of FISA (see page 2), which categorically excludes from FISA's requirements any and all "surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States."

For surveillance to come within this exemption, there is no requirement that it be conducted outside the U.S.; no requirement that the person at whom it is "directed" be an agent of a foreign power or in any way connected to terrorism or other wrongdoing; and no requirement that the surveillance does not also encompass communications of U.S. persons. Indeed, if read literally, it would exclude from FISA any surveillance that is in some sense "directed" both at persons overseas and at persons in the U.S.

The key term, obviously, is "directed at." The bill includes no definition of it.

So they can spy on any of us now. Anyone, with no cause. And as Robert Parry of Consortium news pointed out, it is we the citizens of the Unite States that our government is watching... not Al Qaeda:

But al-Qaeda terrorists always have assumed that their electronic communications were vulnerable to interception, which is why 9/11 attackers like Mohamed Atta traveled overseas for face-to-face meetings with their handlers. They limited their phone calls to mostly routine conversations.

The terrorists also had no reason to know or to care that the U.S. government was or wasn't getting wiretap approval from the secret court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They simply took for granted that their communications could be intercepted and acted accordingly.

It never made sense to think that al-Qaeda terrorists suddenly would get loose-lipped just because the FISA court was or wasn't in the mix. The FISA court rubber-stamps almost all wiretap requests from the Executive Branch for domestic spying, and overseas calls don't require a warrant.

Can anyone really imagine a conversation like "Gee, Osama, since Bush has to get FISA approval, we can now call our sleeper agents and plan the next attack."

Similarly, there's no reason to think terrorists would change their behavior significantly if they knew that the U.S. government was engaged in massive data-mining operations, poring through electronic records of citizens and non-citizens alike.

The article went on to state that the real reason for this bill was to cover up past wrongdoings in the domestic spying program that was already in place:

The chief reason, especially for the excessive secrecy around the data-mining operations, appears to be Bush's political need to prevent a full debate inside the United States about the security value of these Big Brother-type procedures when weighed against invasions of Americans' privacy.

Bush knows he could run into trouble if he doesn't keep the American people in the dark. In 2002, for instance, when the Bush administration launched a project seeking "total information awareness" on virtually everyone on earth involved in the modern economy, the disclosure was met with public alarm.

The administration cited the terrorist threat to justify the program which involved applying advanced computer technology to analyze trillions of bytes of data on electronic transactions and communications. The goal was to study the electronic footprints left by every person in the developed world during the course of their everyday lives -- from the innocuous to the embarrassing to the potentially significant.

The government could cross-check books borrowed from a library, fertilizer bought at a farm-supply outlet, X-rated movies rented at a video store, prescriptions filled at a pharmacy, sites visited on the Internet, tickets reserved for a plane, borders crossed while traveling, rooms rented at a motel, and countless other examples.

Another reason for the last minute desperate FISA bill, was apparently due to the fact that an anonymous judge (anonymous judge?) struck down a 'key element' of Bush's original wiretapping program, stating that the government had overstepped it's authority:

A U.S. intelligence court earlier this year secretly struck down a key element of President George W. Bush's warrantless spying program, The Washington Post reported in its Friday edition.

The decision is one reason Congress is trying to give legal authorization to the spying program in fevered negotiations with the Bush administration this week, the Post reported.

The intelligence-court judge, who remains anonymous, concluded that the government had overstepped its authority by monitoring overseas communications that pass through the United States, the Post said, citing anonymous government and congressional sources.

The Democrats have once again, caved.

Ellen Nakashima and Joby Warrick at the Washington Post reported:

The 227 to 183 House vote capped a high-pressure campaign by the White House to change the nation's wiretap law, in which the administration capitalized on Democrats' fears of being branded as weak on terrorism and on a general congressional desire to proceed with an August recess. ...

Privacy and civil liberties advocates, and many Democratic lawmakers, complained that the Bush administration's revisions to the law could breach constitutional protections against government intrusion. But the administration, aided by Republican congressional leaders, suggested that a failure to approve what intelligence officials sought could expose the country to a greater risk of terrorist attack. ...

"There are a lot of people who felt we had to pass something," said one angry Democratic lawmaker who requested anonymity, citing the sensitivity of caucus discussions. "It was tantamount to being railroaded." Cowards!! You are the MAJORITY!!

In a sole substantial concession to Democrats, the administration agreed to a provision allowing the legislation to be reconsidered in six months. ...

Tonight, several Democrats said the bill would "eviscerate" the Fourth Amendment. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said that lawmakers were being "stampeded by fearmongering and deception" into voting for the bill. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) warned the bill would lead to "potential unprecedented abuse of innocent Americans' privacy."

Carl Hulse and Edmund L. Andrews at The New York Times reported:

The House Democratic leadership had severe reservations about the proposal and an overwhelming majority of Democrats opposed it. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the measure "does violence to the Constitution of the United States."

But with the Senate already in recess, Democrats confronted the choice of allowing the administration’s bill to reach the floor and be approved mainly by Republicans or letting it die.

If it stalled, that would have left Democratic lawmakers, who have long been anxious about appearing weak on national security issues, facing an August spent fending off charges from Mr. Bush and Republicans that they left Americans exposed to terrorism threats. (So you SOLD US OUT. Better you had let Bush 'call you names.' This is unforgivable.)

Despite the political risks, many Democrats argued they should stand firm against the president’s initiative, saying it granted the administration far too much latitude to initiate surveillance without judicial review. They said the White House was using the specter of terrorism to weaken the privacy rights of Americans and empower Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, an official Democrats say has proved himself untrustworthy.

"Legislation should not be passed in response to fear-mongering," said Representative Rush Holt, Democrat of New Jersey.

Time to replace these Blue Dogs with real Democrats. Or Republicans that value the Constitution. Or everyday, patriotic Americans that have read the Constitution and are capable of standing up to fear-mongering bullies.

These people should never be elected to public office again. Never. Note the names. Remember these names.

Songs of terror in the White House

Bush: Congress must stay put, pass new terror surveillance law
Associated Press
Aug. 3, 2007 09:30 AM
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Friday that Congress must stay in session until it approves legislation modernizing a U.S. law governing eavesdropping on foreigners.

"So far the Democrats in Congress have not drafted a bill I can sign," Bush said at FBI headquarters, where he was meeting with counterterror and homeland security officials. "We've worked hard and in good faith with the Democrats to find a solution, but we are not going to put our national security at risk. Time is short."

The president, who has the power under the Constitution to keep Congress in session, said lawmakers cannot leave for their August recess this weekend as planned unless they "pass a bill that will give our intelligence community the tools they need to protect the United States."

Congress to Bush: You must stop obstructing justice, withholding testimony and flaunting subpoenas. You must also stop breaking the fourth amendment of the Constitution by spying on American citizens without a warrant. Congress has the power under the Constitution to impeach you for obstruction of justice, along with an entire laundry list of other offenses. Don't push your luck.

Another thing. You must also stop telling us what we 'must' do. You are not a king.

Dennis talks about Impeachment

A Warning

I may have posted this here before, possibly last winter. I wrote it after having the strangest dream... Lincoln walked into a 'dream in progress' and gave a fiery oration about democracy.

It's hard to forget a dream like that.

I think I was still 'haunted' by a recent visit to the Lincoln Memorial, and the timeless words written on the walls of his shrine there. I noticed, for the first time, that he looks out across the Mall; directly at the Capitol Building. Directly at Congress.

Watching them.


A Warning

I had a dream, of darkness and despair;
And in that blackness I did see a man
And he, when saw me, reached out for my hand.
I knew the face, the countenance so bleak
And I: I could not face those anguished eyes.

He’s pacing now, his hands behind his back
His shoulders hunched, his agitation clear;
"Our Constitution tossed aside – and why?"
Dark eyes, deep pools of wisdom and of grief;
In quiet desperation search my face;

And I, reminded of the ponderous price,
The heavy weight he bore to keep his faith;
To save the Union and restore the peace
and now he does not rest, even in death,
But brings a dire warning for our time:



"Democracy bequeathed to you at birth
Exists to serve the people’s will and need;
Do you no longer want this precious gift?
Of what are you so fearful now - of whom?
Of shadows that perhaps may come to pass?

This is the strongest nation on the earth!
The biggest danger, always, was your fear;
And used against you, it has made you slaves!
Would you return at last to slavery?
Indenture unto corporate masters now?

This is your government! It’s yours!
And those who tell you 'no,' have robbed you blind
Defend it now, and stand while there is time!
Your freedom on this earth is in your hands;
For no one else can save you from your fate.

The time and place to serve your nation’s need
Is now; right here, and in this darkest hour.
Speak out, stand up, refuse the bitter pill
Of passive servitude and fearful doubt!
How can let your independence lapse?

You drain all meaning from their noble deaths;
The generations who before you fought
To keep the flame of liberty alight;
And now, their sacrifice - no consequence?
And this, from simple fear and ignorance?

And you - your education guaranteed;
Whereas, I learned to read by mine own will
And burning drive to know, then change my world.
Perhaps it is too easy for you now...
You have no concept of the price we paid.

Has too much time elapsed, that you forget?
You cannot see the armies, nor recall;
We faced the largest monarchy on earth!
With fierce desire for freedom we held on,
To live here free! To work this land in peace.

The story of our forefathers remains
In history books, available to all;
Thus any child of liberty can learn
Our nation's lineage and forward path.
If only you would seek to learn your past!

Democracy will pass into decay;
I would this fate had passed our children by.
This land, this government designed to last
Into eternity; and all we asked
Our children yet unborn, was vigilance.

We did not ask you light the fire yourselves;
But merely tend the flame lest it burn out,
or worse, be snuffed by malice and deceit.
For all bequeathed to you – for all we gave;
We died for you that you might know true peace.

Adversity is always at the door;
Alas, true character is forged in fire,
And thus, is often lost as embers cool.
The child that knows not of the father’s pain,
Embraces war; and all must bleed anew."

ACLU: US Constitution in grave danger

Not that this is news to me, but when the ACLU comes out and makes a statement like this... we've gone down a very dark road indeed.

I fail to see how Congress has any choice, given their oaths of office, but to defend it. Those who fail to defend it now should be accountable in the next election... and indeed when they come home for their 'August vacation' and leave their posts in Washington. This abuse of our democracy cannot stand. The people have spoken... unfortunately we are having trouble being heard over the din of the lobbyists.

From United Press International:

The ACLU in a statement urged the U.S. Congress to "vote to hold White House officials in contempt for refusing to cooperate with legitimate congressional subpoenas."

The ACLU statement said the issue had become "a constitutional crisis that threatens to destroy the separation of powers."

"Presidents have tried in the past to overreach in claiming executive privilege," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "However, Congress has long served as a check to such abuses of power, slapping the president's hand when needed and pursuing contempt or enforcement actions that eventually resulted in the release of crucial information. Today's Congress must do the same if it wishes to remain a meaningful and independent branch of government."

The ACLU said it "rejected claims that Congress' responsibility to conduct oversight or investigate executive misconduct was somehow less important than its legislative function and therefore not worthy of compulsory enforcement."

"It's do-or-die time for the separation of powers," Fredrickson said. "Congress is facing a historic moment when it can fight for its rightful place in our Constitution or accept the president's continued and sweeping claims of supremacy."

The ACLU noted that U.S. courts "have long supported Congress' authority not only to pass laws, but also to investigate their application. The courts have asserted that claims of executive privilege are a potentially dangerous proposition that should only be applied, and can only be upheld, under narrow circumstances."

Oath to... the president?

Poor poor Sara Taylor. Her credentials as a loyal Bushie may have earned her kudos in her White House post, but her performance before Congress lacked intelligence and tact.

The woman actually appeared to believe she had taken an oath to 'the president' instead of to the Constitution. Seriously! She said it!

"I took an oath the president, and I take that oath very seriously." - Sara Taylor

Transcript:

Leahy: And then you said, I took an oath to the President, and I take that oath very seriously. Did you mean, perhaps, you took an oath to the Constitution?

Taylor: Uh, I, uh, yes, you're correct, I took an oath to the Constitution. Uh, but, what--

Leahy: Did you take a second oath to the President?

Taylor: I did not. I--

Leahy: So the answer was incorrect.

Taylor: The answer was incorrect. What I should have said is that, I took an oath, I took that oath seriously. And I believe that taking that oath means that I need to respect, and do respect, my service to the President.

Leahy: No, the oath says that you take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. That is your paramount duty. I know that the President refers to the government being his government -- it's not. It's the government of the people of America. Your oath is not to uphold the President, nor is mine to uphold the Senate. My oath, like your oath, is to uphold the Constitution.

Whoops!

Note: One quick reminder to Senator Leahy... Bushies don't actually believe in the Constitution. You see, its just a 'piece of paper.' Their fearless leader has made that more than clear. I'm not sure exactly what they swore to defend when they took those oaths of office - GOP party interests?

Never forget what you're dealing with here:

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"