The Political Chase

Transportation Workers Union Fined

A judge has imposed a $1 million-a-day fine on the Transport Workers Unions for ignoring the Taylor Law, which bars the union workers from striking.

—–

Lots of Lies

A long list of lies by George Bush is here.

Caught in Another Lie

Kos has caught the president in another lie related to Snoopgate. Yes, it has a name now. Jonathan Alter coined it.

Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act, “Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security” April 20, 2004 9:49 AM EDT

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.

As my grandfather used to say, “How ‘bout them apples?”

Jonathan Alter on HRH Bush

It’s not just left-wing liberal bloggers beating on Bush.

Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter:

Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power.

I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting, but one can only imagine the president’s desperation…The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference…No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law.

Alter drives home a good point; this is about major issues associated with the Constitution, which has successfully defined this country and its guiding principles beginning in 1781 and continuing for 220 years – until George Bush became president. Not even Richard Nixon reached the heights the Bush administration has reached. What president, prior to this president, literally became the definer of legislation, interpretor of the Constitution and legislation, and enforced legislation as it sees fit? Furthermore, the Republican controlled Congress is complicit by allowing, for purely partisan reasons, the president to rule as an absolute monarch for five years.

The Nixon era demonstrated the Constitution actually worked and was resilient. Nixon’s worst crime was covering up a simple burglary. George Bush meets the prerequisites to spend a little vacation time at the International Criminal Court in addition to domestic courts.

—–

Analyzing the President’s Argument

Yesterday the president stated:

As President and Commander-in-Chief, I have the constitutional responsibility and the constitutional authority to protect our country. Article II of the Constitution gives me that responsibility and the authority necessary to fulfill it.

Let’s look at this a bit closer than the president obviously did. First, it is necessary to recognize the content of Article I, and specifically Section 1 and Section 8.

ARTICLE I

Section 1

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 8

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The president is not king and does not have full and complete authority. 

• He has dismissed Article I, Section 1 its entirety.
• Article I, Section 8 says Congress shall “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” It does not say President of the United States.
• Article I, Section 8 says Congress shall “make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.” It does not say the President of the United States.
• Article I, Section 8 says Congress shall call “forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.” It does not say the President of the United States. I believe this one of five areas that are at the core of where the president violated the Constitution.

Now for the president’s argument.

Article II, Section 2, specifically states:

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 seems to have not read the entire sentence, specifically “when called into the actual Service of the United States.” Furthermore, Article II provides the president the authority to be Commander-in-Chief, but Article I clearly states under what conditions and terms the Commander-in-Chief must operate. It may be easily viewed in business terms. George Bush may be President and Chief Executive Officer, but he is not Chairman of the Board of Directors, nor is he on the Board of Directors, which as a whole is the President’s boss.

Since Mr. Bush is adamant that Article II defines the Office of the President, he needs to pick up the phone, call the Attorney General, and demand that the Attorney General haul his ass to jail. Article II, Section 3 states, “…he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…” What exactly is not clear about that statement?

Bush has also failed to mention Amendment IV, which states:

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.

If he did not violate the Fourth Amendment, then no one else in America has ever committed a crime either. Open the jail house doors.

In summary, I believe Articles of Impeachment can made based upon the following.

• Article I, Section 1 (may not fly)
• Article I, Section 8
• To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces
• Calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions
• Organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing
• Article II, Section 2 – When called into the actual Service of the United States
• Article II, Section 3 –  He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed
• Bill of Rights, Fourth Amendment – 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.

Okay lawyers, have at it. I’m not a lawyer, but that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

—–

Watching Washington

Ron Elving for NPR:

This is what becomes genuinely disturbing: This blanket assertion of authority has no discernible limits. Accepting it confers on this president — or any president — the powers of autocracy.

Trust Me

George Bush wants the American people to trust him. Everything he says is truthful and not distorted or misrepresented, right? This is a good example of the president “telling the truth.”

President Bush is making selective use of an opinion poll when he tells people that Iraqis are increasingly upbeat.

The same poll that indicated a majority of Iraqis believe their lives are going well also found a majority expressing opposition to the presence of U.S. forces, and less than half saying Iraq is better off now than before the war.

Bush frequently talks in general terms about millions of Iraqis "looking forward to a future with hope and optimism," as he put it in a news conference Monday. The previous evening, he was more specific in his televised address when he declared, "Seven in 10 Iraqis say their lives are going well and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve even more in the year ahead."

He was referring to an ABC News poll conducted with Time magazine and other media partners before the Iraqi general elections last week. Bush is dismissive of polls that reflect on his own performance, claiming not to pay attention to them.

Among the findings:

More than two-thirds of Iraqis surveyed face-to-face opposed the U.S. presence, but only one-quarter of respondents wanted American troops to leave right away.

—–

Administration’s Talking Points Are Moot

I am amazed as I read articles about the Bush Administration’s violation of FISA.

“People are running around saying that the United States is somehow spying on American citizens calling their neighbors,” Mr. Gonzales said. In fact, he said, it was “very, very important to understand” that the program is limited to calls and communications between the United States and foreign countries.

First, is that not what the administration is doing? If my neighbor picks up the phone and calls outside the U.S. and the feds tap in, isn’t that spying on my neighbor?

Second, how and why are the American people supposed to believe anything the Bush administration says? Trust is earned, it cannot be demanded by a king. People understand what they see.

Third, and most important of all, Gonzales point is moot. If every American thought exactly as he suggests, it has absolutely no relation to the fact that the president violated the Constitution. Bush committed thousands of counts of criminal acts. Period.

—–

Judge Bars ‘Intelligent Design’ From Pennsylvania Classes

In the first major case on the issue of teaching intelligent design, a federal judge ruled today that intelligent design cannot be discussed in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district.

The Dover Area School Board violated the Constitution when it ordered that its biology curriculum must include “intelligent design,” the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled Tuesday.

Remember what Pat Robertson said about the city of Dover?

“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God — you just rejected Him from your city,” Robertson said on his daily television show, “The 700 Club.”

This will surely stir the rhetoric, as if the pot is not already stirred enough and needs additional stirring.

Blogging, National Borders and More…

You may have already heard about this since it is a bit dated. I thought it was worth passing along.

A blogger that is a native Iranian, a resident of Canada (Toronto), and US guest in New York (six-months intervals per visa requirements) was denied entry to the US from Canada on his return trip to NYC due to the content of his blog.

Hossein Derakhshan, according to eWeek is “a freelance Web designer, journalist, and someone referred to in the blogosphere as ‘one of the great pioneers of international blogging and freedom of speech online.’ ” Derakhshan had been staying in Manhattan, made a brief trip back to Toronto, and was detained by the US Customs when they noticed he was born in Tehran. The Customs agents Googled Derakhshan, found his blog, and bounced him based on the blogs content.

When I read the article, I just went, duh! Having agents Google you on the spot never crossed my mind as a procedure here or any other country. The feds routinely visit this site, as well as the State of Texas, since I am such a DeLay fan. They’re welcome to do so, but it just never occurred to me a simple Google search at a given border may prove to be troublesome.

Over the years, I’ve done my share of international travel and lived in Australia for awhile. I did exactly what Derakhshan was doing, when I lived in Australia. I stayed the duration of my business visa, left the country for a few days (nice trips to New Zealand, Southeast Asia, etc.) and reenter with a refreshed visa.

Just something to consider as you are opining and potentially embarking for other lands.

Excepting Canada, I have never experienced delays until I visited Thailand on holiday, which peaked the US Customs interest. Canada (Quebec only) started stopping me after several pass throughs on business. After a few stops, I began speaking only French when going into Quebec and was not stopped thereafter. When in Rome, eh?

Bottom line – you may want to consider your ranting and what unexpected consequences may be lurking.

Read the article.

Rep. Lewis Ready to Pursue Impeachment

Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) is prepared to pursue impeachment.

“The President has offered no substantive justification for the National Security Agency’s domestic spying program on American citizens. Neither has he provided the legal foundation for this controversial program, the specific statutes and constitutional authority alluded to by his former National Security advisor, Condoleeza Rice.

“In my opinion, the President has violated the law, and the House and Senate must pursue their inquiries into this illegal program. The President must stop using the threat of terrorism and the tactics of fear to invade the privacy of American citizens. George W. Bush is the president. He is not a king. He is not above the law.

Hat tip to Progressive Lyceum.

—–

Deliberate Misreading of the Law

Check out this post from Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald’s profile: “Until this year, I was a litigator in NYC specializing in First Amendment challenges (including some of the highest-profile free speech cases over the past few years), civil rights cases, and corporate and security fraud matters.”

Excerpt from post:

Defenders of the Bush Administration are resorting to outright distortions and deliberate falsehoods about the Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA) in order to argue that the Administration’s warrantless eavesdropping on U.S. citizens complies with the mandates of that statute. To do so, they are simply lying — and that term is used advisedly — about what FISA says by misquoting the statute in order to make it appear that the Administration’s clearly illegal behavior conforms to the statute.

Read it all

Hat tip to Philocrites.

—–

Legal Precedent Against Spying

This may just burst Bubble Boy. SCOTUS ruled in a 1972 case, U.S. v. U.S. District Court, 407 US 297, that the president cannot authorize warrantless spying, even in the face of great harm.

—–

Bush Administration’s View of Congressional Oversight

George Bush and company have gotten some of their lies straight on domestic spying and are aggressively hitting the mainstream media with their talking point(s). Bush is going to play the card that he told Congress about the secret domestic spy program, and therefore it’s okay – all legal, with sufficient Congressional oversight.

This morning, the monarch said “Leaders in Congress had been briefed more than a dozen times” about the program. In an ABC news interview, Prince Cheney said, “It’s been briefed to the Congress over a dozen times…” Tonight on Hardball, Madame Secretary Condi Rice said in a dismissive tone, Congress was briefed at least twelve times. (ed. note: Hardball transcript not available at this time)

These are the facts – eight people in Congress were briefed and were not allowed to discuss the program. There are 553 535 members in Congress. Briefing eight out of 553 535 that cannot discuss it lest they violate the laws of the United States is not briefing Congress.

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), ranking minority member of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee (SSIC), was one of the privileged eight. Rockefeller released a handwritten letter to Prince Cheney from July 17, 2003 expressing his discontent about the program. Following are Rockefeller’s statements from today’s press release that accompanied the 2003 letter to Cheney. [Emphasis added.]

“For the last few days, I have witnessed the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General repeatedly misrepresent the facts.

“The record needs to be set clear that the Administration never afforded members briefed on the program an opportunity to either approve or disapprove the NSA program. The limited members who were told of the program were prohibited by the Administration from sharing any information about it with our colleagues, including other members of the Intelligence Committees.

“At the time, I expressed my concerns to Vice President Cheney that the limited information provided to Congress was so overly restricted that it prevented members of Congress from conducting meaningful oversight of the legal and operational aspects of the program.

“These concerns were never addressed, and I was prohibited from sharing my views with my colleagues.

“Now that this issue has been brought out into the open, I strongly urge the Senate Intelligence Committee to immediately undertake a full investigation into the legal and operational aspects of the program, including the lack of sufficient congressional oversight.”

The administration continues to hold the eight members of Congress to their confidentiality requirements (big surprise). Sen Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who is also on the SSIC, was on Hardball tonight as well. Feinstein said she has questioned Rockefeller about the matter after The New York Times released the story, but Rockefeller said he could not discuss it with her.

You decide. Is that Congressional oversight?