The Young Turks

They told the Democrats, but the Democrats still disagree with you.

The following Democrats voted to give the President the authority to intercept transmissions from al Qaeda. Blanche Lincoln (AR), David Pryor (AR), Diane Feinstein (CA), Salazar (CO), Joe Lieberman (CT), Tom Carper (DE), Nelson (FL), Inouye (HI), Evan Bayh (IN), Mary Landrieu (LA), Barbara Mikulski (MD), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Claire McCaskill (MO), Ben Nelson (NE), Kent Conrad (ND), Bob Casey (PA), Jim Webb (VA), Jason Altmire (PA-4), John Barrow (GA-12), Melissa Bean (IL-8), Dan Boren (OK-2), Leonard Boswell (IA-3), Allen Boyd (FL-2), Chris Carney (PA-10), Ben Chandler (KY-6), Jim Cooper (TN-5), Jim Costa (CA-20), Bud Cramer (AL-2), Henry Cuellar (TX-28), Arthur Davis (AL-7), Lincoln Davis (TN-4), Joe Donnelly (IN-2), Chet Edwards (TX-17), Brad Ellsworth (IN-8), Bob Etheridge (NC-2), Bart Gordon (TN-6), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD), Bryan Higgins (NY-29), Baron Hill (IN-9), Nick Lampson (TX-22), Dan Lipinski (IL-4), Jim Marshall (GA-8), Jim Matheson (UT-2), Mike McIntyre (NC-7), Charlie Melancon (LA-3), Harry Mitchell (AZ-5), Collin Peterson (MN-7), Earl Pomeroy (ND), Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23), Mike Ross (AR-4), John Salazar (CO-3), Heath Shuler (NC-11), Vic Snyder (AR-2), Zack Space (OH-18), John Tanner (TN-8), Gene Taylor (MS-4), Tim Walz (MN-1), Charlie Wilson (OH-6).

Did you ever, for one minute, stop to ponder why so many Democrats supported President Bush on this issue? The reason is because the President was right on the law, and he was right on the Constitution.

If you read this article, you can come up to speed on why so many Democrats supported the President. If you disagree with the source or content, perhaps you can offer your own explanation of why so many Democrats voted with Republicans.

”For nearly two years since the New York Times blew the NSA’s warrantless-surveillance program, the Left has transfigured itself into a whirling dervish of indignation over President Bush’s imperious trampling of “the rule of law.” Why? Because he failed to comply with the letter of FISA, which purports in certain instances to require the chief executive — the only elected official in the United States responsible for protecting our nation from foreign threats — to seek permission from a federal judge before monitoring international enemy communications into or out of the United States.

But the president, at least, had an excuse. Actually, not a mere excuse but a trump card. We call it the American Constitution. It empowers the chief executive to conduct warrantless surveillance of foreign threats. Even the FISA Court of Review, the highest, most specialized judicial tribunal ever to consider FISA, has acknowledged this. So did the Clinton administration when FISA was amended in 1994. In the United States, the “rule of law” first and foremost is the Constitution.

The president’s constitutional authority is inviolable — it cannot be reduced by mere legislation. When Congress passes a statute, like FISA, that purports to reduce the president’s constitutional authority, it is Congress, not the president, that is trampling the rule of law. A president who ignores such a statute is not a law-breaker; he is a defender of the highest law. He is executing the responsibility vested in his office by the Framers who, as Alexander Hamilton observed in The Federalist No. 73, worried deeply about “the propensity of the legislative department to intrude upon the rights, and to absorb the powers, of the other departments.”

But let’s leave that aside for a moment. Whether you agree or disagree with what I just argued, it is incontestable that, under our Constitution, the president has a role — a plenary role, according to the Supreme Court — in the gathering of intelligence against foreign entities for national-security purposes.

The courts, to the contrary, have no such role. The Framers did not give them one, and the Supreme Court has acknowledged that they are institutionally incompetent to be brought into the intelligence-gathering equation, much less to manage it.

It is thus not the Constitution that has inserted judges into the intelligence-gathering business. If the Constitution were being honored, they’d be out of it. They are in the equation for one reason and one reason alone: Congress unwisely (and, I believe, unconstitutionally) interposed them when it enacted FISA.”

by KenTX on 08/18/2007 06:52:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]

---

I had the same problem until I upgraded the Flash (a plus - Comedy Central works for me again now, too!) but if you'd rather download the WMV there is a link on the left side of the page the video is on.

HTH

by MedfordTim on 08/19/2007 12:42:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]

---