I Am Shocked, Shocked that U.S. Gov Abused Blank Check Powers

In practice, the primary goal of any 1st term administration is....a second term.

It will be interesting to see how much of the powers acreted under the Bush adminstration will be pared back by Obama.

Btw, I have much disdain for ALL of Congress over their failure to declare war etc. They have been far too willing to let the President shoulder the blame -- and consequently handing him carte blanche to do things without review or prompt oversight. If they supported the Iraq invasion then they should have found the stones to declare war and stand by their vote. If you weren't willing to do that, than have the stones to vote no -- like that lass who voted against BOTH WW1 and WW2. Voting to let the President decide where, when etc. without review? Totally milquetoast response.

I'm not as adamantly opposed to the Patriot act or modified FISA provisions as many here (though neither is a perfect piece of law-making) -- but I'm glad they have sunset provisions and must be renewed as opposed to having become fixed. What may be necessary in extremis is intolerable under more normal circumstances and, unfortunately, The Order of Cincinattus is no longer in vogue for our leaders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TevashSzat

The thing is, the Democrats' majority within Congress is not that great. They could try to pass laws that will restrict the president's power and such, but the thing is that even if they get a majority to vote for the bill, the president will simply veto it and there would be no way for the democrats to override the veto. Furthermore, politics will make it even harder for even most democrats to vote for many bills of this type since it will get spun and politicized.

For the Democrats to have really done a ton to oppose the Bush administration, they would have had to have a greater majority than they do now. Since they don't and thus, many votes may be close, all we end up having is a lame duck presidency and congress

---

The president can't veto articles of impeachment. ~;) If the president is breaking the law with his actions and orders to executive branch agencies, the rule of law should apply. If the president tries to introduce a law that is unconstitutional, Congress should reject it. The FISA amendment was not necessary, all Congress had to do was... nothing. The president can't veto nothing. Sometimes, nothing is the best course of action.

I still fail to see what was wrong with the original FISA requirements. A (essentially) rubber-stamp court for national security measures, but where requests to tap politicians and public figures would be frowned upon. At the time of the amendment vote, we already knew about abuses with NSLs and other shenanigans. It was glaringly obvious that the executive could not be entrusted with no-oversight powers. So, of course, we give it more. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

The president can't veto articles of impeachment. ~;) If the president is breaking the law with his actions and orders to executive branch agencies, the rule of law should apply. If the president tries to introduce a law that is unconstitutional, Congress should reject it. The FISA amendment was not necessary, all Congress had to do was... nothing. The president can't veto nothing. Sometimes, nothing is the best course of action.

I still fail to see what was wrong with the original FISA requirements. A (essentially) rubber-stamp court for national security measures, but where requests to tap politicians and public figures would be frowned upon. At the time of the amendment vote, we already knew about abuses with NSLs and other shenanigans. It was glaringly obvious that the executive could not be entrusted with no-oversight powers. So, of course, we give it more. :no:

---

I will tell you why I, personally, believe this happened. And this is just a theory from an almost poly sci major, so take it with a grain of salt.

There is this thing, and this is almost never discussed in public discourse, about the "decorum" of high office. The average American who is proud to put his feet up and drink a six pack after work could give a crap about America's "image" or government's image. But Senators, Congressmen and the higher offices do. It's something I think we exist in some state of denial about because of our spoken rejection of the aristocratic overtures of our Eurocentric past and ancestry and our stories we tell ourselves about how we're the country of the little guys.

Awhile back, and I'm operating off memory here, so I may get some of the details wrong. There was a hydro power grid proposed through several states, and it would go right through some Native American land where low income subsidized housing existed. These were people already poor and with little recourse or opportunity to just "move" or make a new start elsewhere. Representatives from this tribe were present at Congressional hearings for the proposal and one of the more outspoken representatives, a woman if I recall, happened to make an offhand remark about how just kicking all these people off their lands and re-removing them elsewhere or giving them "market rate" compensation and telling them to move was just a new chapter in the old genocide.

And the room exploded. Aides and members of Congress were chattering excitedly that they couldn't have "genocide" in the official record, and asked her to retract the statement. She herself was surprised at the reaction. But foreign heads of state read transcripts of what goes on in our Congress. The rich and the rulers and the leaders of the rest of the world pay attention, and it affects our reputation overseas, and makes headlines in places we wouldn't guess or expect. This was explained to her and she was asked to retract her statement. She said that depended on whether or not the proposal was still going to toss all these Indian people off their land, and the plan was modified on the spot, after what looked like a stone wall where no one was going to budge. All over one word and concern for the "decorum" of the official record.

So what's my point here? Bush's administration broke the law, big telecom corporations were complicit it that lawbreaking and probably knew it, even at the time they were doing it. Bush's justice department has been staffed with hacks who arbitrarily changed the definitions of torture and legality when it comes to wiretapping and eavesdropping. Why would Congress want to help them smooth this over? The same reason that such a ridiculous explanation as the "magic bullet theory" was accepted in the Kennedy assasination, and the same reason many people assisted in the coverup for Nixon. Call it what you want.... continuity of government, stability of our democracy, averting riots and revolution, sidestepping years of costly legislation and lawsuits filed by our own citizens against our own government tying up national politics for the next 25 years. Decorum of the official record.

That's why I think Congress went along with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

So what's my point here? Bush's administration broke the law, big telecom corporations were complicit it that lawbreaking and probably knew it, even at the time they were doing it. Bush's justice department has been staffed with hacks who arbitrarily changed the definitions of torture and legality when it comes to wiretapping and eavesdropping. Why would Congress want to help them smooth this over? The same reason that such a ridiculous explanation as the "magic bullet theory" was accepted in the Kennedy assasination, and the same reason many people assisted in the coverup for Nixon. Call it what you want.... continuity of government, stability of our democracy, averting riots and revolution, sidestepping years of costly legislation and lawsuits filed by our own citizens against our own government tying up national politics for the next 25 years. Decorum of the official record.

That's why I think Congress went along with it.

---

You do realize that going along with it makes Congress in total, all democratics and republicans complicit in the action. In essence you argued against a point that you seemly now actually agree with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus

Btw, I have much disdain for ALL of Congress over their failure to declare war etc. They have been far too willing to let the President shoulder the blame -- and consequently handing him carte blanche to do things without review or prompt oversight. If they supported the Iraq invasion then they should have found the stones to declare war and stand by their vote. If you weren't willing to do that, than have the stones to vote no -- like that lass who voted against BOTH WW1 and WW2. Voting to let the President decide where, when etc. without review? Totally milquetoast response.

---

Goes back to the initial errors of Congress back in 1950, when instead of declaring war against North Korea for its invasion of South Korea the President asked for and recieved approval from Congress to support the UN Resolution. And we compounded that error when congress passed the War Powers Act of 1973. Congress has slowly attempted to remove its own responsiblity away from itself and pass it on to the President for many years. Unfortunately for them they have discovered that the old adage still holds true, Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The thing is this slow erosion of responsiblity under the constitution that Congress was to have, is the fault of both parties. Its not a process that just happened over the last 8 years, but one that has been ongoing since the end of WW2. Where politicians have been controlled by the thought of getting more influence through lobbies and special interest groups, then they were in maintaining their constitutional authority.

Term Limits.

Limit Campaign Spending.

^^my new mantra^^

-edit-
I thought War Powers Act of 1973 was fairly decent; it recognized that emergencies may arise where POTUS needs to send force somewhere very quickly - and let's him do it for 60 days (while reporting to Congress), after which, if he needs more time, it's not an emergency anymore, it's war, and he follows constitutional procedure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

You do realize that going along with it makes Congress in total, all democratics and republicans complicit in the action. In essence you argued against a point that you seemly now actually agree with.

---

Here's the difference. I don't think the Dems are really "for wiretapping." But I think when it came to the TelComm immunity, they felt the damage was done. Some have argued it was a big sellout to the telecommunications corporations who abused laws and now want to get out of the liability. This is true but I do not believe it was the reason so many voted for the bill. I think covering up excessive abuses of American civil liberties, and avoiding this chapter in the U.S. History books going down as being as bad as McCarthyism, is in the interests of everyone in government-- even the people who wished a lot of this stuff had never happened in the first place.

The immunity-- the damage was done. You were not going to punish the policymakers by suing Google and Verizon out of orbit with astronomical awards in lawsuits for invasion of privacy. You were just going to wreck the economy.

Mind you, I am speaking in practicality now. I'm not saying "this is what I wish they would have done and am glad they did it this way." I am merely theorizing why things came down the way they did.

Quote:

---

Goes back to the initial errors of Congress back in 1950, when instead of declaring war against North Korea for its invasion of South Korea the President asked for and recieved approval from Congress to support the UN Resolution. And we compounded that error when congress passed the War Powers Act of 1973. Congress has slowly attempted to remove its own responsiblity away from itself and pass it on to the President for many years. Unfortunately for them they have discovered that the old adage still holds true, Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The thing is this slow erosion of responsiblity under the constitution that Congress was to have, is the fault of both parties. Its not a process that just happened over the last 8 years, but one that has been ongoing since the end of WW2. Where politicians have been controlled by the thought of getting more influence through lobbies and special interest groups, then they were in maintaining their constitutional authority.

---

You have no argument from me. Although I will qualify what you said very slightly on one item. When the President demands that "his" war powers act, or "his" force resolution, must be passed for the good of the country, and makes the case directly to the American people, he is, if public opinion swings correctly, in effect blackmailing Congress. Yes, Congress "should", in idealism, stand up to that kind of thing. The reality is in the atmosphere after 9/11 very few people did, public sentiment was overWHELMINGLY in favor of passing the resolution to use force. The public wanted to see someone, anyone, blow up for what happened, preferrably sooner rather than later. So while technically I do agree with you.... we can't excuse the shortsighted unthinking nature of the American public, because temporary representatives will always have to respond to some degree to public sentiment to keep their seat. That's the way our system works. And the President for taking advantage of the mood of chaos and anger to push things through to enable himself with all kinds of war powers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

...
You have no argument from me. Although I will qualify what you said very slightly on one item. When the President demands that "his" war powers act, or "his" force resolution, must be passed for the good of the country, and makes the case directly to the American people, he is, if public opinion swings correctly, in effect blackmailing Congress. Yes, Congress "should", in idealism, stand up to that kind of thing. The reality is in the atmosphere after 9/11 very few people did, public sentiment was overWHELMINGLY in favor of passing the resolution to use force. The public wanted to see someone, anyone, blow up for what happened, preferrably sooner rather than later. So while technically I do agree with you.... we can't excuse the shortsighted unthinking nature of the American public, because temporary representatives will always have to respond to some degree to public sentiment to keep their seat. That's the way our system works. And the President for taking advantage of the mood of chaos and anger to push things through to enable himself with all kinds of war powers.

---

To which they should have responded by Declaring War and charging the President with the effective prosecution thereof.

Presidencies almost always push for more power. Pushing back is what makes the system work. Had Congress done so, there would have been a different tone -- the the Congress could still have placated the national mood.

Btw, I think it's important to remember that our government, ultimately, derives its powers from the governed. On the rare occasions we collectively rear up our normally ostriched heads and take charge via a massively united public opinion, it is the duty of our government to shut up and do as they are told.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

To which they should have responded by Declaring War and charging the President with the effective prosecution thereof.

---

I've just got to chime in here- the AUMF is a declaration of war. There is no difference- legal or practical.

Edit: Ok, so as not to just leave that statement hanging on its own, I'll provide some support:

Quote:

---

Furthermore, the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) provides the statutory equivalent of a Declaration of War:

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

The relevant section of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 reads (emphasis added):

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, ...

Per the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a "specific statutory authorization" by Congress grants the same powers as a formal Declaration of War.

---

And a quote from none other than Joe Biden himself (response to a question asked after the AUMF vote):

Quote:

---

Question: Senator, thank you for this broad gauged approach to the problems we face. My question is this, do you foresee the need or the expectation of a Congressional declaration of war, which the Constitution calls for, and if so, against whom?

Biden:The answer is yes, and we did it. I happen to be a professor of Constitutional law. I’m the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal that we passed. It was in conflict between the President and the House. I was the guy who finally drafted what we did pass. Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction … Louis Fisher(?) and others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever. And we defined in that Use of Force Act that we passed, what … against whom we were moving, and what authority was granted to the President.

---

Sorry for the tangent :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

-edit-
I thought War Powers Act of 1973 was fairly decent; it recognized that emergencies may arise where POTUS needs to send force somewhere very quickly - and let's him do it for 60 days (while reporting to Congress), after which, if he needs more time, it's not an emergency anymore, it's war, and he follows constitutional procedure.

---

That was the initial intent of the law, however over the last 20 years it has morphed into the authorization for the use of force, and the failure of congress to call the President on the requirements of the act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Here's the difference. I don't think the Dems are really "for wiretapping." But I think when it came to the TelComm immunity, they felt the damage was done. Some have argued it was a big sellout to the telecommunications corporations who abused laws and now want to get out of the liability. This is true but I do not believe it was the reason so many voted for the bill. I think covering up excessive abuses of American civil liberties, and avoiding this chapter in the U.S. History books going down as being as bad as McCarthyism, is in the interests of everyone in government-- even the people who wished a lot of this stuff had never happened in the first place.

The immunity-- the damage was done. You were not going to punish the policymakers by suing Google and Verizon out of orbit with astronomical awards in lawsuits for invasion of privacy. You were just going to wreck the economy.

Mind you, I am speaking in practicality now. I'm not saying "this is what I wish they would have done and am glad they did it this way." I am merely theorizing why things came down the way they did.

---

I dont necessarily disagree with what you say here, but the end result is that the Democratic Party made themselves complicit in the erosion of a basic right. The path to hell can be paved with good intentions, but it was still the wrong thing to do.

Quote:

---

You have no argument from me. Although I will qualify what you said very slightly on one item. When the President demands that "his" war powers act, or "his" force resolution, must be passed for the good of the country, and makes the case directly to the American people, he is, if public opinion swings correctly, in effect blackmailing Congress. Yes, Congress "should", in idealism, stand up to that kind of thing. The reality is in the atmosphere after 9/11 very few people did, public sentiment was overWHELMINGLY in favor of passing the resolution to use force. The public wanted to see someone, anyone, blow up for what happened, preferrably sooner rather than later. So while technically I do agree with you.... we can't excuse the shortsighted unthinking nature of the American public, because temporary representatives will always have to respond to some degree to public sentiment to keep their seat. That's the way our system works. And the President for taking advantage of the mood of chaos and anger to push things through to enable himself with all kinds of war powers.

---

Yes that explains Afganstan, but they can not use that excuse to support the invasion of Iraq, and then not follow the requirments of the Act themselves. Congress has the ability to review and challenge the use of force after they give the initial approval. Something that my congresswoman refused to do, even though I wrote her concerning the requirements of the Act itself

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I've just got to chime in here- the AUMF is a declaration of war. There is no difference- legal or practical.

Edit: Ok, so as not to just leave that statement hanging on its own, I'll provide some support:


And a quote from none other than Joe Biden himself (response to a question asked after the AUMF vote):
Sorry for the tangent :bow:

---

I understand the point -- even argued it myself with Tribes a time or two. The AUMF was within the scope of Congress' authority as the Constitution does not specify the means by which Congress shall declare war. They certainly did authorize the use of military force knowing that Taliban forces and resources were going to be hit.

My point was that, by framing that declaration (the AUMF) in so general a manner -- under the ostensible goal of providing flexibility in a non-standard conflict -- Congress made a grave error that allowed for the acretion of Presidential power AND that shows them up as a group of collective woosies who craved the political cover of letting the President assume apparent responsibility.

You will recall that many in the Bush adminstration argued that no Congressional oversight (or authorization vote) was required for the invasion of Iraq as:

The AUMF already had granted the DoW Bush needed to act as he saw fit because of the presence of an Al Queda group in Iraq.

This is the kind of acretion I think wrong. Congress should not only have the :daisy:s to DECLARE a war -- in simple form, no silly antics, but should then actively promote and encourage its successful conclusion.

What we got was more of the professional politico norm = try to set up a situation where you can take credit but push the blame elsewhere.

Nauseating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

...Obama, that economists endorse his plans more, that he seems far more in touch with regular concerns of regular people (he doesn't define middle class as 250k...)

---

One of our members once showed that two economic Nobel laureates endorsed Obama's plans.
Crazed Rabbit then showed that McCain was endorsed by 5 economic Nobel laureates.

I think that was about half a year ago so; I imagine the situation is different. That a majority of economists now prefer Obama though...

About the 250K, isn't that where Obama drew the line in regards to the "What do you consider to be rich?" question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

One of our members once showed that two economic Nobel laureates endorsed Obama's plans.
Crazed Rabbit then showed that McCain was endorsed by 5 economic Nobel laureates.

I think that was about half a year ago so; I imagine the situation is different. That a majority of economists now prefer Obama though...

About the 250K, isn't that where Obama drew the line in regards to the "What do you consider to be rich?" question?

---

Well off, yes, and a big majority of Americans would think of that as a great deal of income. But playing these pass the hot potato games never gets anywhere. If you say 250k is too low to be considered the very bottom marker of upper middle class & above, then we go higher. Then we've got the rich people complaining and moaning that they already pay too much tax so don't increase their tax burden-- DECREASE it.

You have to draw the line somewhere.

Personally I think Obama's mark is far more reflective of reality in terms of how few people make that much or more, than McCain's comment that people around 600k are middle class. Maybe to someone who married a beer heiress, yeah, 600k is just low-class "new money" but...