House GOP Stages Walkout Over Democrats’ FISA Sabotage
Tags: Government.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
While Democrats choose to play politics over the absurd US Attorneys issue, the GOP brings to mind the real business before the Congress:
House Republicans have walked out to protest the Democrats’ refusal to consider senate-passed FISA legislation that would enable America’s intelligence agencies to effectively monitor terrorists who are plotting to attack. While Democrats can’t find time for that, they did find time to debate the merits of specific individuals on the Administration staff. This is an outrage – our first duty is to protect America. Democrats refuse to take that seriously.
For Democrats, politics trumps all – this is the real “change” they want; a change for the worse.
HAT TIP: Captain’s Quarters
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
88 Responses to “House GOP Stages Walkout Over Democrats’ FISA Sabotage”
Caucus of Corruption
js,
The president does have “inherent authority” but that is not equivalent to unlimited authority. The president’s inherent authority to gather intelligence was limited, as allowed by the Constitution, by the co-equal legislative branch after the litany of abuses by the CIA and the FBI were uncovered by the Church Committee. That’s why we have FISA.
You need to either quit paying lip service to a false god or present evidence that this authority is not constitutional.
This is the third time this year Ive seen you post on this, and the last two times you failed to present such factual evidence. Obviously, with a rabid hatred of Bush which was fanned to gain power (and nothing more), the leaders of the Democrat Party has yet to charge any crimes for illegal wiretap.
Its like a good fart, makes a lot of stink, and thats about all the Democrats can do. In the end, real Americans are smart enough to see that the power the Democrats are grasping for are the same one that would destroy this Nation as a Republic. As it is, we must struggle through the grasp that the Democratic Capitalists have on this Nation, through the Democratic National Party. We are NOT a Democratic Capitalist nation, we are a Republic of the People. Evern member of Congress needs to acknowledge that and end thier affiliation with Corporate Lobbiest.
If they dont, this nation will fall to its knee’s, and we will be destroyed by our own elected, corrupt leaders.
51. Diana Powe | February 14th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
js,
The president does have “inherent authority” but ……..
—-//\\—-
There is not “buts”.
Its period.
The president’s inherent authority to gather intelligence was limited, as allowed by the Constitution, by the co-equal legislative branch after the litany of abuses by the CIA and the FBI were uncovered by the Church Committee. That’s why we have FISA.
—-///\\\—-
LOL
You been drinking to much.
THE ONLY THING THAT CAN CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION IS AN AMENDMENT RATIFIED BY 2/3 OF THE STATES.
there you go, barking at the fools moon again!!
SAR..Diana reads thru everything, ’cause that’s her JOB!!!!! Paid or unpaid….doesn’t matter.
DP is actually a chinese guy sitting in some sweathouse room full of computers getting paid two dollars a day to spread propoganda in America to undermine our society.
Two bucks a day over there is pretty good money. Dont laught!@!
js,
Let me acquaint you with a colloquial expression – The fox guarding the chicken coop. FISA was enacted by Congress (the LEGISLATIVE branch) in 1978 to make it a felony to conduct electronic surveillance in regards to foreign intelligence gathering against “US persons” without a warrant issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). Violations are felonies punishable by up to five years in prison.
The responsibility for enforcing all federal law lies with the Justice Department. The Justice Department is part of the EXECUTIVE branch. It is the Executive Branch that initiated the activities that are in violation of FISA.
Oddly, they’re not anxious to pursue a prosecution against their own boss. Does that seem surprising to you?
js, as Diana suggests, your view that the President has unlimited power in this area, is wrong at totally at odds with virtually every founding principle of the USA. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing that supports this view, save for the legal arguments of the Bush Administration.
As I posted yesterday, Article II of the Constitution imposes the opposite obligation: “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Lawbreaking is still illegal even if George Bush says it should be done.
It’s simple: the Bush Administration broke the law.
Section 1809 of FISA states:
The Administration admits that it conducted surveillance in a way that is prohibited by FISA.
The Article II argument used by you and the Administration is a desperate atempt to justify presidential law-breaking.
Nothing in Article II mentions or even references the power to eavesdrop, the power to engage in surveillance, or the right to violate Congressional statutes.
In fact, the only clause in Article II which seems to relate to this issue is one that strongly undercuts the claim that the President has the right to violate Congressional law. That’s the part requiring that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . . ”
Why you want to allow the President to have the power to break the law, I don’t understand. Although I suspect if it was a President Obama breaking the law, your interpretation of the Constitution would be slightly different.
Your argument that Article II allows for the President to break the law is a crock.
Sorry DP.
That same excuse is all you have presented, all 3 times you hack on it. Its still wrong.
The President ordered Wiretaps under Presidential Authority. Years ago.
NO CHARGES are pending.
If this is all you have, you would have been better off not responding at all.
You can ignore what Ive already pointed out, just like you did before, but that doesnt change the truth.
The FACTS, not your wishy washy baying at the fools moon, is all that matters. Either find some new material, or quit posting the same lies over and over.
In the real world, that means put up or shut up. The DNC has had control of BOTH HOUSES for OVER A YEAR NOW.
There are “NO CHARGES”. ARE YOU THAT STUPID?
js:
Is that the best you can do? Attack Diana instead of dealing with the issues she raises in an adult, rational manner? Just ’cause you don’t care about the rule of law isn’t a reason to attack those who take it seriously.
58. bongoman | February 14th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
js, as Diana suggests, your view that the President has unlimited power in this area
—///\\\—
Thats Bull. Diana play with the same broken wind up toy you are playing with obviously…..
Real facts, not gossip, are what matters. THERE ARE NO CHARGES AGAINST BUSH.
Are you just as stupid as DP?
We already know the FISA Courts arent. The specifically identified Executive Powers, which they have ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY OVER.
WTFU and stop baying at the fools moon.
60. bongoman | February 14th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
js:
Is that the best you can do?
—///\\\—-
Its all I need.
Because its true. Are you there, sitting next her? Because you are using the same lame political propoganda he does.
Small minds must think alike, eh?
js,
Pray tell us how the Congress orders the Justice Department to prosecute the President for violating federal law? Let’s see…Congress is the Legislature. DOJ is in the Executive. Nope. Doesn’t happen. Try again.
js, the absence of charges does not mean the law was not broken. It is a logical fallacy to equte the two.
Maybe you should be asking *why* no charges were brought? But that would involve dealing with Diana’s point above about the DoJ. But it’s much easier to stick your fingers in your ears and rabbit on irrelevantly about the lack of charges.
Prey tell, DP, Congress “ASKS” the Senate. oh ya, pelosi and reid, the two DNC stooges
I guess its pretty simple, except for some stumping chinese dood in a sweatbox in CHINA eh?
You dont have a clue what impeachment is.
Try again little chinese propoganda communist.
64. bongoman
Actually bongo, charges are preferred when laws have been broken.
there are NO CHARGES
or do you thing PELOSI AND REID are morons and dont have the resources to figure out whats right and whats wrong?
you two peas in a pod or SO LAME
your liberal puke needs to be flushed
js,
Careful, your hatred is showing and that’s supposedly something that only “leftys” do. You’re correct, the Constitution does allow for impeachment of officials in the Executive Branch. However, the mere fact that the authority exists for the Congress to take action to impeach does not equate to a will to impeach, especially when actually removing someone from office would require a number of Republican senators to vote in favor. Now, how likely do you think that is?
I’ll help you out. The answer is zero.
DP Commie
Thats not hatred. Its the truth.
The ONLY FACT that matters. None of your double talk changed that. Its the DUTY of the SENATE to determine judicially the guilt or innocence of the President if he breaks the law. NOT Congress. If the Senate Convicts the President, they can vote to impeach him. After that, Congress can remove him from office.
Your lies are old. You have not put forward a single credible argument. You are just plain stupid when it comes to this issue. All you have in your head is propoganda. NO FACTS. NO SOLID ARGUEMENTS. NOTHING but gossip and rumors.
is your shift over yet? Im done wasting my time on you.
js,
You need to read over the Constitution of the United States. Here’s what it says about the duty of the President – “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. That would include the law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Here’s what the Constitution says about impeachment – “The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” and “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.” Now, the House could send articles of impeachment for the President to the Senate, but they obviously have chosen not to engage in a futile exercise because there are zero Republican senators who would vote to remove George W. Bush from office.
DP, #69 is very lame, again. Color it with verbosity all you want. It is lame and assinine. Empty.
Gee, SEW, not too fond of the Constitution? Most of that comment comes directly from that document. However, thanks for the “substantive” critique.
there are zero Republican senators who would vote to remove George W. Bush from office.
Because there is zero reason to remove him. Period. Dot. End of Story.
Plays into the hands of “Her Majestic Highness” .. no more!!
–Jeremiah–
It has worked against organized crime, it has worked against terrorists in the past, it has worked time and time again.
More uncited b/s–when has it worked against terrorists in the past, jerk?
Secondly – why is it so hard to understand that firing people because they won’t prosecute people for political reasons shouldn’t happen.
The USA’s serve at the pleasure of the President, just as do members of his cabinet. He can let them go for NO reason whatsoever. And so what if those reasons are political? He should’ve gotten rid of all Clinton holdovers when he took office, in all departments, but he had to attempt a “new tone.” It bit him in the arse real hard, and damaged his presidency.
Post #46, by CW, is classic. Could we get some of that crack you’re somking, CW?
You kooks should follow Diana’s, aka Bossie, lead. At least her b/s sounds intelligent. The rest of you are laughable, a bunch of t/p-repeating parrots.
Piglosi: Henry, some of the terrorists we transferred to Ft. Leavenworth, after we closed Git’mo, have escaped. What should we do?
Waxman: Have them move to MD–they can get drivers licenses there, and become registered Democrats. Hey, did I mention we saved MLB?
69. Diana Powe
Poor Diana Powerless.
You have backtracked and double talked this issue enough. Im done with your spinning topics out of context. Any moron can do that, you are no different, and one of the worst.
The one thing that doesnt support you is the truth. Bill Gates might have given you his fortune, but he didnt. Scientists might have figure out how to draw electricity straight out of air last year, but they didnt. We could land on Mars tomorrow morning, and establish a colony, but we wont.
And Congress has not asked the Senate to try Bush for any crime whatsoever.
Your fantasies are just that, fantasies. You score no points for spreading lies, rumors and gossip…..its only result is that its proven that you are full of poop.
Please provide a quote, or something that proves your assertion in post# 24.neocon | February 14th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Sorry for the cut and paste, it is something I do not like to do. But since you get most of your news apparently from wingnut radio I can understand why you are a little out of touch compared to the average American. Here is a Washingtonpost article with the answer to your question. If you say it is a lie take it up with Mr. Babington. It must be sad to watch your party tilt toward Facism.
Hastert Launches a Partisan Policy
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 27, 2004; Page A01
In scuttling major intelligence legislation that he, the president and most lawmakers supported, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert last week enunciated a policy in which Congress will pass bills only if most House Republicans back them, regardless of how many Democrats favor them.
Hastert’s position, which is drawing fire from Democrats and some outside groups, is the latest step in a decade-long process of limiting Democrats’ influence and running the House virtually as a one-party institution. Republicans earlier barred House Democrats from helping to draft major bills such as the 2003 Medicare revision and this year’s intelligence package. Hastert (R-Ill.) now says such bills will reach the House floor, after negotiations with the Senate, only if “the majority of the majority” supports them.
The hypocrisy knows no bounds on this thread – on both sides!
ATTORNEY FIRINGS
Did Bush have the right/authority to fire the attorneys? Absolutely. How many attorney did Clinton fire and for what reasons? As far as I know, none of the attorneys Bush fired said they were asked to do anything illegal or against their code of ethics.
CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS
Does Congress have the right to subpoena witnesses to something it is investigating? Absolutely. This has happened on both sides but not any more extreme then when Republicans subpoenaed Secret Service members to testify about Clinton’s affair. Talk about trashing Executive Privilege. But that wasn’t about sex, it was about the rule of law. Interesting.
Actually, thats not completely true.
Supreme Court has held in the past that the Executive Office affords the President a level of confidentiality. It is a reasonable conclusion to assume that the Executive office was not meant to conceal the acts of the President having sexual relations with an intern. That has nothing to do with national security or policy making (which should be considered covered under executive privilige., however, internal dialogue in and with the White House Chief of staff, and White House Council, about the administration of the Presidents appointed duties are covered (are should be considered covered by executive privilige).
The whole thing lies on this, if executive privilige applies to the Presidents staff and its communication with the President.
I would say absolutely, this is not even a fishing trip, so much as a viable means of harrassment and a public relations ploy to make the Executive Office look like it did something illegal, when it didnt.
Fudge, thats about all it is.
Original FISA allows for warrantless wiretaps, for specific reasons and they are temporary, short term (48 hours I believe, it has been awhile since I went through it last) to allow info gathering while getting a warrant.
It was used against organized crime. Read it. It is in there.
Early on, Bush requested that the same law enforcement techniques, evidence gathering that were being used against suspects in organized crime be extended to suspects in terrorism. LAWS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE!
Libs have been using “illegal wiretaps” from day one as a weapon to attack Bush and surprisingly NOT TERRORISM.
Clinton used the provisions in FISA to head off foreign mergers and set up trade deals. Look it up.
You libs spout off the usual talking points without regard to what is already written.
dian #71
So where in your contortions does it state the POTUS is not the Commander in Chief? Sworn to protect America? Which part do you not comprehend?
SEW,
The President of the United States is the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States”, that’s true. However, the oath is, in its entirety:
So, he’s sworn to protect the Constitution. What do his enumerated duties say about protecting America? Hmm, reading Article II of said Constitution…nope, not a word about a responsibility to “protect America”. Just states that his oath is to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” which is the same Constitution that says he has the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. One of those laws is FISA. It’s not that hard to understand, really.
Then read it again. You are obviously having much difficulty! BDS interference?
Sorry, SEW. I can’t make up things in my head that aren’t in the text. Feel free to actually quote the document, if you’d like. That’s what I did.
TiredofLib post #79.
“Original FISA allows for warrantless wiretaps, for specific reasons and they are temporary, short term (48 hours I believe, it has been awhile since I went through it last) to allow info gathering while getting a warrant.
It was used against organized crime. Read it. It is in there.”
That is the point! He could have gotten a warrant AFTER THE FACT.
The question is why couldn’t he do that and why is that a problem for him.
The point of the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) was never about really doing anything about terrorism. That’s been reinforced by the President’s vow to veto a renewal of the Protect America Act of 2007 which he says is needed to prevent attacks if the version he gets has all the language about protecting America but doesn’t provide retroactive immunity for the telephone companies. The point is to expand presidential power at the expense of Congress. Everything else, including what the President claims is necessary protection for Americans, is secondary to that expansion.
Deleted – off topic
Diana,
I agree. There’s a distinction there that I feel was intentional wording by the founding fathers.
To protect the laws and the constitution. Not to “protect America” by ignoring laws and doing whatever one wishes even if it’s unconstitutional or against the laws of our land just to protect the country and/or its “interests”.
[...] the zeitgeist demanded just a few months ago. Noting John Boehner’s stunt was indeed “staged,” but all in the name of principle, that any disrespect to the dead was the fault of those damn [...]