Three branches and a weed...
So, I read a quote and thought it might have been taken out of context, as a politician's statements usually are. So I went to the source and read the whole speech. The following is a quote from a speech given by GWB in April, 2004,
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."----Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act, Kleinshans Music Hall, Buffalo, New York. April 20, 2004.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
Go to the Whitehouse website and read the speech.In the context of the speech it is a particularly odious lie. In the paragraph before, he talks about roving wiretaps, a perfectly reasonable and lawful solution, and before he mentions them he says, offhandedly,
"-- see, I'm not a lawyer, so it's kind of hard for me to kind of get bogged down in the law. (Applause)"
Replace the word "law" with "constitution", not an unreasonable switch especially given the previous statement about constitutional guarantees (laws), and the President's muddle-headedness (or is it intentional ignorance?) becomes clearly dangerous. Why did these people applaud?! Would they have applauded if they knew what they now know?
Does it make sense in a constitutional democracy, based upon a "check and balance" system for one branch to set up another, fourth, parallel branch of government (a secret judicial branch with an unchecked system of detection, apprehension and punishment)? Could this weed grow? I would argue yes. What if congress decided to set up it's own military? Could the Supreme Court introduce legislation? As long as we're weeding abroad in Afghanistan and Iraq, then let's pull some weeds in the arbor of democracy.
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."----Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act, Kleinshans Music Hall, Buffalo, New York. April 20, 2004.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
Go to the Whitehouse website and read the speech.In the context of the speech it is a particularly odious lie. In the paragraph before, he talks about roving wiretaps, a perfectly reasonable and lawful solution, and before he mentions them he says, offhandedly,
"-- see, I'm not a lawyer, so it's kind of hard for me to kind of get bogged down in the law. (Applause)"
Replace the word "law" with "constitution", not an unreasonable switch especially given the previous statement about constitutional guarantees (laws), and the President's muddle-headedness (or is it intentional ignorance?) becomes clearly dangerous. Why did these people applaud?! Would they have applauded if they knew what they now know?
Does it make sense in a constitutional democracy, based upon a "check and balance" system for one branch to set up another, fourth, parallel branch of government (a secret judicial branch with an unchecked system of detection, apprehension and punishment)? Could this weed grow? I would argue yes. What if congress decided to set up it's own military? Could the Supreme Court introduce legislation? As long as we're weeding abroad in Afghanistan and Iraq, then let's pull some weeds in the arbor of democracy.
posted by N. English at 10:24 AM
15 Comments:
And then of course today the New York Times leads with a story that some of the evidence collected against al Qaeda figures -- including some already convicted -- may be deemed inadmissable since it was possibly obtained illegally. Please, please let him get caught having an affair so that we can impeach the jerk already.
booo!!
Ah, the enlightened political debate of a George Bush apologist? I'm surprised anonymous didn't call me a terrorist.
If anon, or anyone else, has the intellectual capacity to do it, please put together a cogent political defense of Bush's actions. I'd like to hear it, and there's room for it here.
You won't hear me saying booo!!
I've invited Little Cicero, a conservative blogger, to leave a more considered response. We'll see what Little Cicero has to say.
I am by no means "booing" your political stance. I am "booing" the fact that I went to a blog to see cute kids and find something that I can read about in the newspaper. Send your political commentary to the editor of a newspaper. I guess I am just new to this "blogging" concept.
ps- If you are going bring politics into your blogg at least dress your kids up like Clinton or something.
If you want to see cute kids, get a catalog. If you want to see my kids, you're going to have to put up with hearing me speak my mind every now and then. I doubt Christa would let me dress my kid's up as a lecherous ex-president. And I intentionally keep my kids and my politics seperate, so those who choose to do so can ignore them.
I spend time thinking about and editing my political blog entries. They are a reflection of my values and my thoughts, and I write them in a way that try's to be sensitive to my large spectrum of friends and family.
Being new to blogging is no different than anything else. If you have nothing nice to say, or constructive to add or debate, don't say anything at all. Especially if you choose to remain anonymous. Use your initials, at least, so I know who you are and your commentary seems less Karl Rove'ish.
I finally found your blog!
I hope your offer for a link still stands! (You will have a place on my link list as well)
On the constitutionality of the Patriot Act, I would submit that this is exactly what the Supreme Court is for. Several cases have come before the Supreme Court, and although it is not a fast process and there is some unofficial obligation on the part of the President and the Congress to ensure constitutionality in their actions, the Constitution does not direct that it is their first priority to do so. The Congress is the law-making body, so it is they who hold this burden before the President, though foremost it is up to the Courts to make such judgements (there's your checks and balances) As for the President, you must aggree that the order that is given by the Constitution is that he protect the country from enemy forces, foreign and domestic. That should be his first priority, while the Court's first priority is to ensure that those actions are constitutional.
Oh, and in my amateur opinion, I see international wiretapping as not being unconstitutional.
One misconception I see floating around quite alot is that there exists in our Bill of Rights a Right to Privacy. Though such a right may be implied through a few other rights, it is not declared for a reason. That absolute privacy is an absolute obstacle to the security of Americans.
Wiretapping was used against the mob in domestic phone calls, and their was little objection. Actually, in order to do so agents would break into mob bosses' homes, but it did work to clean our cities of mob influence that truly counters the Constitution. Of the many ways of protecting the Constitution, we ought not forget those of destroying the enemies who seek to destroy it.
Sorry these comments are laboriously oversized, but I'm in a wordy mood today.
Thanks Little Cicero, welcome to my blog. The Supreme Court can only exert it's influence when there is a plaintiff, how will the wronged party know to file a complaint?
Congress has already abridged the power of the president by making wiretapping without a court warrent illegal, but also setting up a secret court to deal with this.
The president's extra-legal (usually called illegal if it's someone without money and a fine lawyer) efforts are outside of anything spelled out in the patriot act, and the letter of the law is the letter, until courts interpret it to be otherwise. If the president was unhappy with the extent of his powers, he should have asked for more.
Wiretapping clauses exist in the Patriot Act don't they?
If so, then why did Congress approve the Patriot Act?
The Secret Court was established by the Congress to justify the wiretaps. You call these efforts extra-legal, but ultimately they are legal. What gives the president the right to act extra-legally is his duty to protect the American People. As long as these actions do not directly violate the Constitution, they are justified in the objective, which is to protect the Constitution.
Ultimately the hilarious statement made by the President is valid "I'm not a lawyer...". If the Courts rule part of the act as unConstitutional, then it should be overruled. To the question of how the wronged party files a complaint, the answer is: ACLU, Pro-Bono Lawyers, Lawyers bent on reaking havok on the Bush administration (a few do exist). There are plenty of methods for your choosing if you have a valid claim. I'm sure that between taking crosses off of state seals the ACLU has time to file a few claims.
By the way, what do you say I put you on my link list, and you put me on your link list! I won't leave you afterwards, this isn't a one post stand. Trust me! This will be a long term blogger relationship!
I mentioned the secret courts because they ARE legal, and they are a means of doing what Bush did legally. The only check on the wiretaps in question were justice dept officials appointed in part by Bush. This may be a check, but not a balance.
By the way, I've added you to my side bar, thanks for reading. I've enjoyed your comments, although I still disagree. Do you have a link for the text of the Patriot Act? I'd like to skim it for myself.
I'll try to get a link to the Patriot Act. I really don't see where we disagree on the Patriot Act, but I know we do disagree. Is it that you don't agree with "executive privledge" or that you thought there was misrepresentation to the Congress? I hope you write another post on this subject so Andy can participate in trying to crush me through debate.
Thank You for the link! Thank You, Thank You, Thank You, Thank You Thank You! It's even got its own category! That's really nice. Be sure to comment on my Stranger Danger post. Yourself having children, I'm dying to read your feedback on the subject! You're linked to me, but you don't have your own category because I don't know how to categorize. Thank You!
Post a Comment
<< Home