THIS IS NOT ->Delawareliberal

without treading too far into conspiracy land: Surely you jest!!!
Congress DEMS did object but were constrined by law from going with the info even to their fellow congressioners.

Bushies intend to control the executive branch ad infinitum, NO?
 

If the NSA program is such a bad thing, why hasn't anyone in Congress asked them to stop?

If by "NSA program" you mean "warrantless domestic wiretaps," then yes, many members of Congress have condemned this practice and asked them to seek warrants instead.

And why didn't any of them raise concerns publicly when they were first told?

Sworn to secrecy, remember?
 

why didn't any of them raise concerns publicly when they were first told?

A few member of congress were given partial information, and they DID raise concerns (with the president, not the press) with the little bit of info they did get.

the powers you say Bush is assuming are being assumed for the Presidency, not for Bush himself.

That is the problem. What if the next person is not like Bush? What if Hilary is not immune from the corruption that attends unlimited power in the same way you feel Bush is?

Given all of this executive power, what is to stop a future president from declaring a labor action such as a strike, or a civil protest, or gun ownership, or a blog a threat to national security?

I'm not saying Bush has plans to install himself as dictator, but if you follow his logic, there is nothing to stop him or future executives from doing so.

Doesn’t that seem un-American to you?
 

I believe the popular phrase is "slippery slope." While I usually don't subscribe to such thoughts, the President...ANY president, claiming almost unlimited powers in the name of national security is scary. That's why we have a Constitution that clearly prescribes a division of power between the branches of government. The question "what's next" haunts those of us concerned with civil liberties. "We cannot have an election as scheduled because it will threaten national security" is the ultimate fear. That is why we MUST have these hearings, and we MUST cling to our Constitution and the limits it provides.
 

I think the Alito nomination plays into this as well. Alito has clearly stated that he believes in the "unitary executive" theory and would vote to support the executive branch at the expense of the others.

I was against a filibuster until very recently.
 

One would have to wonder whether that "unitary executive" theory would work with a Democratic president.

What say you, Mr. Alito?
 

One would have to wonder whether that "unitary executive" theory would work with a Democratic president.

I do hope we get to answer that question one day. First we have to get a Democratic election victory past the Supreme Court.
 

What powers, other than warrant less surveillance, has he assumed that are threatening the Constitutional checks and balances?

If you argue that the constitution can be superceded to allow the executive to conduct warrantless surveillance in the interest of national security you are also arguing that the president has the right to supercede the constitution whenever he wants to, provided it is in the interest of national security.

You may no think you are arguing for unchecked, unlimited executive power, but you are.
 

Here is the issue:

Justice O'Conner wrote, "A state of war is not a blank check for the president."

Bush's expansion of executive power to allow the state to spy on citizens without cause, and jail citizens without trials overturns legal precedent reaching back to the Magna Carta.

He thinks he has a blank check, and in fact he does.

He has unlimited, unchecked power if people like you say he does. I'm not sure you are honestly thinking through the implications of giving this president and future presidents a blank check.
 

The founders clearly put language in the Constitution that expressed their intent to have a strong executive, especially in time of war.

Where? All I see is this:

"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..."

That's it.

And then there is this:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
 

I think the problem we're seeing is also one of language. Democrats are calling these calls "domestic" even when they originate overseas. That is not a domestic call, it's an international one.

Secondly, where was the outrage at these warrantless wiretaps when Clinton and Gore were saying how necessary and vital they were?

Since when are Democrats in favor of constraining the power of government?
 

I feel we have come to the end of this. Many people are quoting Ben Franklin these days. The "Those who sacrifice liberty.." quote is all over the place.

My favorite Franklin quote is attributed to him at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation someone asked, "What sort of governmant do we have?"

To which he replied, "A republic, madam, if you can keep it"

When I hear otherwise clear thinking people like Dt make the kinds of arguments he is making here I think, "Well Mr. Franklin, 219 years was a pretty good run."
 

You ready to define "essential," delathought? Qualifying liberties...hehe...something conservatives LOVE to do.
 

No, you guys are defining it by claiming that freedom from unjust wiretaps aren't "essential." You're qualifying which actions aren't civil liberties and which are. Liberals are saying that yes, these wiretaps are a violation. You guys could care less.

PS...when you heading over to my site?
 

If I was the president, I would do everything WITHIN MY POWER to stop terrorist, but I would not expand my power beyond legal and constitutional grounds.

What slays me is this thought: if this story had broke with Clinton instead of Bush (Clinton, btw, only authorized PHYSICAL searches, not wiretaps, to the best of my knowledge), Conservative Republicans would be gathering up their guns to defend their rights against the strong central government they allegedly oppose. To hear the same people argue in favor of a strong federal government with an all-powerful executive is sad, if not laughably ironic.
 

Mike,

You nailed it. I have to think I would have joined them in their calls to fight against the un-American usurpation of power.

I would have assumed that this transcends party ID. I would have been wrong of course.
 

Good thing I'm not a democrat. If that shit had been revealed, then THAT would have been a reason to impeach Clinton. The thing is, you conservatives were too busy patrolling his dick to give a shit about that stuff.

In fact I think most presidents throughout history have committed impeachible offenses. It's getting them at that moment that matters. We've got to get Bush now while the gettin's good!
 

No, probably not. I really have no problem criticizing my own party, bump comes to grind. I'm not real comfortable that Clinton had any similar powers either, but I was too young to know/care about it. Also, I think the larger concern is based on the justification Bush has used regarding this issue, including the rhetoric that seems to indicate that he has little respect for the limits of presidential power in the face of serious national security questions.
 

Geeks have been blogging about Echelon/NSA since 1998 at least. Nobody was listening.
 

I support the President's efforts in the war on terror.

All I want to know is: Why didn't they just get the freakin' warrants??? They have 72 hours after initiating the wiretaps under FISA. The only thing I can come up with is lack of evidence to get the warrant. Of course, if the calls are originating from outside the country then it doesn't matter anyway. I guess we'll have to wait and see what comes of the hearings.
 

I have to think I would have joined them in their calls to fight against the un-American usurpation of power.

the rhetoric that seems to indicate that he has little respect for the limits of presidential power in the face of serious national security questions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the President claimed that the authorization for the program is inherent in the Congressional action following 9/11. If so, isn't he saying he got the power from Congress? If so, isn't that the opposite of a usurping of power, and instead, is an exact description of checks and balances?
 

I believe the President claimed that the authorization for the program is inherent in the Congressional action following 9/11.

Which Congressional action? The Iraq war resolution? The Patriot Act, or something else?

I don't think there was a specific Congressional action that allowed non-FISA domestic spying.

Daschle says no, Congress never implicitly or explicitly authorized warrantless domestic spying outside of FISA.

But Bush and his GOP supporters in Congress say sure, whatever we did authorized whatever the President did or will do in the future.