Sen. Feingold Needs To Brush Up On His Constitution
I was zipping through some news sites this morning, and I came across this piece in the WaPo. Leave it to the Post to throw these comments out there without even the simplest explanations regarding how wrong Sen. Feingold is. The same goes for Sen. Specter.
Sen. Feingold responded to Gonzales' comments in an NBC interview: "There's two ways you can do this kind of wiretapping under our law. One is through the criminal code, Title III; the other is through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That's it. That's the only way you can do it. You can't make up a law and deriving it from the Afghanistan resolution.
Democrats and Republicans called separately yesterday for congressional investigations into President Bush's decision after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to allow domestic eavesdropping without court approval.
"The president has, I think, made up a law that we never passed," said Feingold.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he intends to hold hearings. "They talk about constitutional authority," Specter said. "There are limits as to what the president can do."
First, I go to Sen. Russ "I know nothing about the Constitution" Feingold. Sen. Feingold, There are two specific sections in the US Constitution I'd like to point out. The first comes from Article II, Section 1:
"The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States."
The second comes from Article II, Section 2:
"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"
The president, through Article II, Section 2, has the authority to do anything and everything within his power to protect this nation from harm. The NSA has the authority to listen in on foreign conversations, whetyher they originate in the US or not. This is within their purview. They can't wiretap a phone call be tween Marcie and I, but if either of us were to call abroad, you bet they could. Would they? No. We've got no connections to terrorists.
And that is a key point of this argument. We are talking about terrorists, or people connected to them. These people conspiring with our enemy may indeed be US citizens, but when they make a phone call to their associates in any number of countries, they're going to be listened to. The Capt. Ahabs in the Senate don't seem to understand that between the Patriot Act and the NSA taps, we haven't had another terrorist attack on our soil since 11 Sept. They think it's due to their utter brilliance. Uh-huh. Sure it is. With friends like them America needs no enemies.
To Sen. Specter, I only have this to say. The president is well within his Constitutional authority. You go right on ahead and hold you precious hearings, you old goat. When the mid-terms are over, and the new leadership is in place, I'd personally yank your chairmanship. You've obstructed the nominees sitting in committee waiting for their passage out of committee to the floor of the Senate. You've stuck your nose in matters that don't concern you, or grandstanded for the cameras, and you've claimed that the soonest you could get Judge Alito into hearings was January; that's a lie becuase we've watched you twiddle your thumbs for the last two months.
And to both senators, you might want to reference the lawsuit the ACLU brought against Pres. Clinton in the late 1990s. In that suit, they contended that the president had no authority to send troops into harm's way, as such a move--without the consultation of Congress--was a violation of the Constitution. That would be true if it were not for the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which stated that the president need only consult with Congress prior to the launch of our troops.
http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml
SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations. --War Powers Resolution.
The president's ability to prosecute this war is within the boundaries of power as "Commander-in-Chief" of all US military forces. He has the power to ensure security to the nation as best he can. If that involves the NSA tapping some phones, then so be it. The civil liberties moonbats go into high gear every time something like this comes up. As a matter of fact, let me cite Sen. Feingold from Sept. of 2001.
Like any legislation, this resolution is not perfect. I have some concern that readers may misinterpret the preamble language that the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism as a new grant of power; rather it is merely a statement that the President has existing constitutional powers. I am gratified that in the body of this resolution, it does not contain a broad grant of powers, but is appropriately limited to those entities involved in the attacks that occurred on September 11. And I am particularly gratified that this resolution explicitly abides by and invokes the War Powers Resolution.
Seems to be a bit of contradiction between today and yesteryear. This is what the resolution to enter this war stated.
"The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
Pretty cut and dry. congress granted him the authority to use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or people" that wish to do this nation harm. He can do what he must within the limits of the law. The NSA is thoroughly working within the limits of the law, and of their mission. The "Defeatocrats" keep acting as though everything the president does is illegal, and that they're the only ones with a moral compass to guide us in this war.
They have tried to undermine the president at every turn. This is emphasized not just by the debate over the Patriot Act in 2001, but also by the internal memo that Sen. Rockefeller was behind on the Intelligence Committee, the constant haranguing by the Senate for reports on the status of the war, the grilling administration officials like Sec. Rumsfeld and AG Gonzales go through, and the recent request for withdrawal of our troops. This is not a party that is looking out for America with her best interests in mind. This is a party looking for what is best for them. That's their lust for power talking, and that's something that can never be allowed to occur again. The Capt. Ahabs of the Democrat Party can't be allowed to have control over this nation's national security. They directly ignored it in the 1990s, and look what was delivered to our doorstep on 11 Sept: A war we didn't want, but have reluctantly embarked on nonetheless.
The president is doing everything in his power to protect this nation. He hasn't broken any laws. He hasn't gone beyond his authority. AG Gonzales would have been required to tell the president when he was crossing lines. AG Gonzales hasn't, to my knowledge, had to inform him of such things. To many, this may look like the administration is "skirting" the edge of the law. It's not. It's right in line with it. Uneducated people (read: moonbats and "Defeatocrats") seem to think that simply because they have never seen the extent of said laws, that someone is breaking them. That's not true in this case. The president is responsible for the security of the nation. This is in his mandate as president within the Constitution.
Do the "Defeatocrats" think that when this nation goes to war the presidents authority ends with commanding the troops? When we go to war, we unleash a whole host of assets in our arsenal. This includes not only military might, but intelligence services, as well. This includes, but isn't limited to, efforts by the CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, and the various branches of military intelligence. These agencies serve as our eyes and ears in war. Their jobs are to disrupt and dismantle foreign powers wishing to do the nation harm, domestically as well as abroad. For them to claim that the NSA's job is outside the realm they're currently working within is not only foolish, it's entirely asinine.
Let them hold their hearings. They've got nothing. This is the worst case of grasping at straws I've seen from their side of the aisle since 2001. And what's worse is that they're playing Russian Roulette with this nation's security, and that put's every citizen's life in jeopardy.
Publius II
I was zipping through some news sites this morning, and I came across this piece in the WaPo. Leave it to the Post to throw these comments out there without even the simplest explanations regarding how wrong Sen. Feingold is. The same goes for Sen. Specter.
Sen. Feingold responded to Gonzales' comments in an NBC interview: "There's two ways you can do this kind of wiretapping under our law. One is through the criminal code, Title III; the other is through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That's it. That's the only way you can do it. You can't make up a law and deriving it from the Afghanistan resolution.
Democrats and Republicans called separately yesterday for congressional investigations into President Bush's decision after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to allow domestic eavesdropping without court approval.
"The president has, I think, made up a law that we never passed," said Feingold.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he intends to hold hearings. "They talk about constitutional authority," Specter said. "There are limits as to what the president can do."
First, I go to Sen. Russ "I know nothing about the Constitution" Feingold. Sen. Feingold, There are two specific sections in the US Constitution I'd like to point out. The first comes from Article II, Section 1:
"The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States."
The second comes from Article II, Section 2:
"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"
The president, through Article II, Section 2, has the authority to do anything and everything within his power to protect this nation from harm. The NSA has the authority to listen in on foreign conversations, whetyher they originate in the US or not. This is within their purview. They can't wiretap a phone call be tween Marcie and I, but if either of us were to call abroad, you bet they could. Would they? No. We've got no connections to terrorists.
And that is a key point of this argument. We are talking about terrorists, or people connected to them. These people conspiring with our enemy may indeed be US citizens, but when they make a phone call to their associates in any number of countries, they're going to be listened to. The Capt. Ahabs in the Senate don't seem to understand that between the Patriot Act and the NSA taps, we haven't had another terrorist attack on our soil since 11 Sept. They think it's due to their utter brilliance. Uh-huh. Sure it is. With friends like them America needs no enemies.
To Sen. Specter, I only have this to say. The president is well within his Constitutional authority. You go right on ahead and hold you precious hearings, you old goat. When the mid-terms are over, and the new leadership is in place, I'd personally yank your chairmanship. You've obstructed the nominees sitting in committee waiting for their passage out of committee to the floor of the Senate. You've stuck your nose in matters that don't concern you, or grandstanded for the cameras, and you've claimed that the soonest you could get Judge Alito into hearings was January; that's a lie becuase we've watched you twiddle your thumbs for the last two months.
And to both senators, you might want to reference the lawsuit the ACLU brought against Pres. Clinton in the late 1990s. In that suit, they contended that the president had no authority to send troops into harm's way, as such a move--without the consultation of Congress--was a violation of the Constitution. That would be true if it were not for the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which stated that the president need only consult with Congress prior to the launch of our troops.
http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml
SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations. --War Powers Resolution.
The president's ability to prosecute this war is within the boundaries of power as "Commander-in-Chief" of all US military forces. He has the power to ensure security to the nation as best he can. If that involves the NSA tapping some phones, then so be it. The civil liberties moonbats go into high gear every time something like this comes up. As a matter of fact, let me cite Sen. Feingold from Sept. of 2001.
Like any legislation, this resolution is not perfect. I have some concern that readers may misinterpret the preamble language that the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism as a new grant of power; rather it is merely a statement that the President has existing constitutional powers. I am gratified that in the body of this resolution, it does not contain a broad grant of powers, but is appropriately limited to those entities involved in the attacks that occurred on September 11. And I am particularly gratified that this resolution explicitly abides by and invokes the War Powers Resolution.
Seems to be a bit of contradiction between today and yesteryear. This is what the resolution to enter this war stated.
"The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
Pretty cut and dry. congress granted him the authority to use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or people" that wish to do this nation harm. He can do what he must within the limits of the law. The NSA is thoroughly working within the limits of the law, and of their mission. The "Defeatocrats" keep acting as though everything the president does is illegal, and that they're the only ones with a moral compass to guide us in this war.
They have tried to undermine the president at every turn. This is emphasized not just by the debate over the Patriot Act in 2001, but also by the internal memo that Sen. Rockefeller was behind on the Intelligence Committee, the constant haranguing by the Senate for reports on the status of the war, the grilling administration officials like Sec. Rumsfeld and AG Gonzales go through, and the recent request for withdrawal of our troops. This is not a party that is looking out for America with her best interests in mind. This is a party looking for what is best for them. That's their lust for power talking, and that's something that can never be allowed to occur again. The Capt. Ahabs of the Democrat Party can't be allowed to have control over this nation's national security. They directly ignored it in the 1990s, and look what was delivered to our doorstep on 11 Sept: A war we didn't want, but have reluctantly embarked on nonetheless.
The president is doing everything in his power to protect this nation. He hasn't broken any laws. He hasn't gone beyond his authority. AG Gonzales would have been required to tell the president when he was crossing lines. AG Gonzales hasn't, to my knowledge, had to inform him of such things. To many, this may look like the administration is "skirting" the edge of the law. It's not. It's right in line with it. Uneducated people (read: moonbats and "Defeatocrats") seem to think that simply because they have never seen the extent of said laws, that someone is breaking them. That's not true in this case. The president is responsible for the security of the nation. This is in his mandate as president within the Constitution.
Do the "Defeatocrats" think that when this nation goes to war the presidents authority ends with commanding the troops? When we go to war, we unleash a whole host of assets in our arsenal. This includes not only military might, but intelligence services, as well. This includes, but isn't limited to, efforts by the CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, and the various branches of military intelligence. These agencies serve as our eyes and ears in war. Their jobs are to disrupt and dismantle foreign powers wishing to do the nation harm, domestically as well as abroad. For them to claim that the NSA's job is outside the realm they're currently working within is not only foolish, it's entirely asinine.
Let them hold their hearings. They've got nothing. This is the worst case of grasping at straws I've seen from their side of the aisle since 2001. And what's worse is that they're playing Russian Roulette with this nation's security, and that put's every citizen's life in jeopardy.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home