GOP: Embrace Your Inner A-HOLE

Yeah, but don't worry. Somewhere around the third week of January, 2009, Republicans will rediscover their love for limiting executive power again.

Good reminder of why I'm a Libertarian.

No one who votes for McCain has an intellectually honest or honorable reason to do so.

If they do, I'd like to hear it.

It's good to see that McCain is not so stubborn to admit that he was wrong about the unconstitutionality of the FISA law. Congress cannot statutorily limit a President's Constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief in keeping the country safe from attack. Monitoring enemy communication, even those that involve American citizens is not covered by the Fourth Amendment.

It would be interesting to see if Obama changes his tune on this now that he could be the next POTUS. And he doesn't, McCain will pummel Obama that he is willing to risk another 9-11 or something even worse rather than violate the "rights" of terrorists and those who are in communication with them.

I wasn't aware of any politician who is "a real believer in Constitutional limitations on government power." I think you meant that Obama seeks to limit government where you also prefer limitations and wants to expand government power where you prefer expansion. Big difference.

Chicoun-You intelectual midget. I'm so tired of you fascist assholes. If you think spying on americans is gonna save us from some future terrorist activeties your capacity for rational thougt is nonexistent.Your an idiot. And it's time to stop acting like you and your ilk have a viewpoint that brings something to the conversation.

Chicoun-You intelectual midget. I'm so tired of you fascist assholes. If you think spying on americans is gonna save us from some future terrorist activeties your capacity for rational thougt is nonexistent.Your an idiot. And it's time to stop acting like you and your ilk have a viewpoint that brings something to the conversation.

Damn. I'll bet the only candidate who was stronger than Obama on the Constitutional limits of the presidency was Chris Dodd.

So infuriating and depressing that those answers would have been unremarkable and expected eight years ago, but for the past five years have been held only by a radical minority.

I take with a grain of salt the outrage that is expressed over conflicts between statements by two different people. McCain says one thing, his spokesperson says another six months later in response to an entirely different question and in an entirely different setting. Yes, this needs to be cleared up, but I think it falls a little short of a "McCain one-hundred-eighty" thing. It might if McCain were asked about his spokesperson's quote and confirmed it to be 100% accurate as to his position, but...

Speaking of this is now, ... OT but today is Norman Roger's birthday.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY NORMAN!

"These days, in order to please the self-proclaimed "small government" conservative movement, a candidate must now vow to spy on Americans with no warrants or oversight of any kind; reserve the right to torture; and even break the law -- ignore popular will as expressed through acts of Congress -- whenever such lawbreaking is deemed beneficial. Those are now defining planks in the limited-government "conservative" movement."

This is a dangerous way of phrasing it. "Small government" makes it sound innocuous -- even cute. What we're talking about here is exactly the opposite of "small government" -- this is the unitary executive theory, which consolidates *all* governmental power in the presidency by stripping the powers of the legislative & judicial branches through signing statements & a refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of the courts. "Small government," my ass. This is an insatiable beast that knows absolutely no boundaries.

.."Like others before him, he seems to think government is the answer to every problem; that government should take our resources and make our decisions for us. That type of change doesn't trust Americans to know what is right or what is in their own best interests. It's the attitude of politicians who are sure of themselves but have little faith in the wisdom, decency and common sense of free people." JM 6/3/08

So spying, torture and obscene tax-cuts for the rich is in our best interest?

To so-called "conservatives" in the USA today, "small government" means "low or no taxes on the ultra-rich" and that's all it means. It is nothing but class warfare of, by and for America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc. against everything else.

This is why "small government conservatives" are in favor of such things as the half-trillion dollar taxpayer handout to the nuclear power industry contained in the so-called "global warming" legislation that the Senate considered this week (which was opposed by John McCain because it didn't offer enough support for nuclear power).

Trillions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to the wealthiest corporations in the world are just fine with "small government conservatives" as long as the taxes in question are only imposed on working class and middle class people.

I wonder if McCain is aware to the message he is conveying with these three questions and responses:

10. Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?

McCain declined to answer this question.

11. Who are your campaign's advisers for legal issues?

McCain declined to answer this question.

12. Do you think it is important for all would-be presidents to answer questions like these before voters decide which one to entrust with the powers of the presidency? What would you say about any rival candidate who refuses to answer such questions?

I agree. These are part of the judgment that the American people need.

Chicounsel,
Go read the decision in Katz for what Congress can do with wiretapping. Did you know, Article One comes before Article Two and Article One gives Congress substantial power during wartime (which, this is not, but we'll let you engage in useless fantasies). In the Hamdan decision itself, the Supreme Court again noted " a declaration of war is not a blank check." How much more clear do we have to make it to you tools on the Right that National Security does not trump our rights?

Oh, wait, like one of the posters noted, we will not have to, since come January 22, 2009, all of you will have rediscovered your love of limiting Executive power. Those of us who never dropped our beliefs in the face of political expediency will welcome you back. Meanwile, get back to PW.

GOP: Embrace Your Inner A-HOLE

"Inner"? If only.

What we're talking about here is exactly the opposite of "small government".... "Small government," my ass.

Of course. That's why I've despised the Republicans for years for coopting the libertarian message without any of the substance. Borrowing instead of taxing to fund even more government spending isn't conservative in any way, shape, or form.

However, you might be surprised that there are more libertarians out here than you think. Of course the political discourse is set up in this country to give the impression that anyone not cheering for the red team or the blue team just doesn't have political convictions worth discussing.

Maybe "small government" means policies of small minds.

I mean, why should the POTUS follow the rule of law, for isn't the US Constitution "just a god-am piece of paper.?"

Small minds. No wonder McCain is such a hit with
so many folks.

His "smile" says it all (check out 6/3 speech). I voted against the tax-cuts, now I'm for 'em (smile). Wiretapping is bad, oops, now I'm all for it (smile).

etc.

Small minds are devious.

No, when republicans say "small government", what they mean is "nothing should get in the way of extremely rich people making even more money, no matter how they do it".

Everything else is just marketing and bullshit.

Continuing legal education has recently been introduced in Illinois as a requirement for remaining a member of the Bar. I would suggest Chicounsel take more than a few hours of Constitutional Law. And start at the remedial level.

There's always room for one more in the Titanic!

So when does Adolf Hitler become the patron saint of 21st c. Americanism.

DJ:

Exactly. The fact that the (civilian) president is the commander of the military does NOT mean that the civilian nature of the political position can be militarized. It's a dual role. They're only the same function in a military dictatorship.

This is basic civics 101. I can see why bullshit artists like John Yoo would advance this kind of blatant nonsense - but people who are gullible enough to buy it really need to spend some more time in front of a chalkboard.

From the "That Was Then" Department:

"He has a very distinguished record of military service that we honor," the [Bush] adviser continued, but he also has a 17-year record as a Washington insider...There's a gap between Senator McCain's rhetoric and his record that's as wide as the Grand Canyon."

"He's failed in his major crusades and causes...," Mr. Rove said.

Frank Bruni, Retooling to Portray Bush as the Real Man of Action, NYT Feb 7, 2000

--

"Senator McCain says one thing and does another. He is a 17-year Washington insider whose accomplishments are few and far between." Karl Rove, Face the Nation, Feb 6, 2000

---
"What I see is a man that is talking literally out of both sides of his mouth." Gov. Carroll Campbell (R-SC), Feb 6, 2000

McCain admits he's not looking for romance

Voters will wonder now what else a 71 year old crippled man can offer them.

Congress cannot statutorily limit a President's Constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief in keeping the country safe from attack.

For someone who pretends to be a lawyer (on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog) he seems oddly unfamiliar with the United States Constitution, particulary Article I, Section 7 which lays out Congress' explicit authority to regulate "keeping the country safe from attack":

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Congress cannot statutorily limit a President's Constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief

This is true, though not in the sense that you mean it: the designation of the President as Commander-in-Chief is not a source of Constitutional power, it is a limit on Congress' otherwise plenary power to regulate the military (see Article I, Section 8), preventing Congress from placing paramount power to execute its regulations in that domain in some person other than the President and thereby creating, in effect, a separate executive branch for the military from the one under the President set up by the Constitution.

It does not, however, actually grant any powers to the President, and even more clearly it doesn't grant powers over civilian affairs.

Since there is no Constitutional grant of powers in that provision, Congress can, of course, not limit any such grant.

Every time McCain steps out of line - Dick Cheney jerks the leash. Certainly we've seen Cheney do that enough to little Bushie, poor little whelp that he is.

So can we stop calling McCain the straight talking yet?

Just like Bush, McCain doesn't know what to say until Cheney tells him what to say. McCain is NOT the leader you can believe in, Dick Cheney is. This is maverick? Maverick, my ass! The only other President who was this domesticated, had this short a leash was George W. Bush.

McCain wasn't elected to serve the Republican Party - he was elected to serve Cheney and the neo-cons.

Voters will wonder now what else a 71 year old crippled man can offer them.

Classy. Maybe he's got a developmentally disabled nephew you can bring into the conversation, too.

timb and others:

The following excerpts are taken from the FISA entry in Wikipeadia, which suggests that I am more correct than you guys may wish to acknowledge.

First:

"In 1967, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment applied equally to electronic surveillance and to physical searches. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). THE COURT DID NOT ADDRESS WHETHER SUCH REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO ISSUES OF NATIONAL SECURITY. Shortly after, in 1972, the Court took up the issue again in United States v. United States District Court, Plamondon, where the court held that court approval was required in order for the domestic surveillance to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. 407 U.S. 297 (1972). JUSTICE POWELL WROTE THAT THE DECISION DID NOT ADDRESS THIS ISSUE THAT "MAY BE INVOLVED WITH RESPECT TO ACTIVITIES OF FOREIGN POWERS OR THEIR AGENTS."

Later, the entry discuss cases that specifically involved the constitutionality of FISA:

"However, in a third case, the special review court for FISA, the equivalent of a Circuit Court Of Appeals, opined differently should FISA limit the President's inherent authority for warrantless searches in the foreign intelligence area. In In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002) the special court stated “[A]LL THE OTHER COURTS TO HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE [HAVE] HELD THAT THE PRESIDENT DID HAVE INHERENT AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT WARRANTLESS SEARCHES TO OBTAIN FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION . . . .WE TAKE FOR GRANTED THAT THE PRESIDENT DOES HAVE THAT AUTHORITY AND, ASSUMING THAT IS SO, FISA COULD NOT ENCROACH ON THE PRESIDENT’S CONSTITUTIONAL POWER.�

This case represents the highest judicial authority on this issue since the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of FISA. Thus, contrary to assertions about my legal reasoning skills, the courts agree with Bush that the Fourth Amendement does not apply to the President's inherent authority to engage in warrantless monitoring of communications in the context of conducting foreign surveilance and intelligence gathering for purposes of national security.

Chicounsel, I sincerely hope that one day you get to live in the dictatorship that you obviously long for, where you can revel in licking the boots of an absolute monarch who is above and beyond any and all laws.

Just not in this country.

Why would anyone question the legal reasoning skills of someone who resorts to using Wiki?

Wow, the courts agree with Bush! What a surprise.

So when they come take you away on a whim, Chico, your family will have no reason to complain, eh?

The part I hate is when they charge the family for the bullets. That's piling on.

In all due fairness to McCain, it looks like he's sticking to the "international" exception both times:

McCain: There are some areas where the statutes don't apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications. Where they do apply, however, I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is.

...

In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. McCain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans' international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance."

Correct me if I missed something.

Chicounsel -- Go fish. Hint: Careful throwing around phrases like "foreign intelligence" and "foreign powers or their agents".

The following excerpts are taken from the FISA entry in Wikipeadia, which suggests that I am more correct than you guys may wish to acknowledge.

No, they don't. The first is courts not ruling on the issue at all (which clearly doesn't suggest you are correct), and the one you point to and claim is a court ruling on the issue is merely the court also not ruling on the issue (though the selective context-obscuring quotation you present has been used before in discussion threads here to attempt to make the same point; the last time I responded to it and provided the missing context was, I believe, a little over two years ago.)

GOP--greedy old party, fear-mongering right wing, radical right, unelectable

If what Bush and the telecoms did was legal, then let our judicial system (not just the Republican-packed, Republican-chaired FISA court) decide whether or not what they did was legal and constitutional.

Why are Bush and the telecoms so afraid of having our courts review their secretive, FISA-skirting spying program? Are they afraid that they might end up doing some jail time if all the criminal acts committed by them were to come to light?

Fascist are so, so predictable.

Speaking of this is now, ... OT but today is Norman Roger's birthday.

Norman's blog is down. I pray for his recovery...from something. I am bitterly disappointed. And hugging my bible. In Pennsylvania.

"The following excerpts are taken from the FISA entry in Wikipeadia, which suggests that I am more correct than you guys may wish to acknowledge."

As clueless as ever, I see. And resorting to using wikipedia?? Dear heart, just what was your degree actually in? Because it clearly wasn't law.

The problem with many "strict constitutionalists" is that they don't read the Constitution.

Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Article II, Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

------------

Nowhere do we see a "President's Constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief in keeping the country safe from attack." The President only commands the military; the Congress is responsible for everything else, including the laws necessary for implementing its powers. This is a democratic nation of laws, correct?

Don, you imagine Mr. Unsel believes in the Constitution? No, no, no. Mr. Unsel is a firm believer in the power of power, though within limits. When Republicans hold the reins Mr. Unsel believes they can do no wrong and will search Wikipedia far and wide to provide pseudo-legal justification for their behavior. When the Democrats hold power though that is simply an anathema and our friend Mr. Unsel will hold that the exact same actions he praised are monstrously out of bounds.

We've seen this type. Clinton lies about his sex life - impeachable offense. Bush slaughters hundreds of thousands with his lies - minor policy dispute.

These are pathetic people who, in a just society, would be institutionalized.