Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Domestic Surveilance Part 2 Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 3
 
 
2006-05-17 9:25 AM
in reply to: #426144

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2
run4yrlif - 2006-05-17 10:20 AM

When you have a Republican congress, a republican President and a majority of the SCOTUS appointed by republicans, yes, the checks and balances does kind of go out the window.

Maybe there should be a law...



Thanks.....I had forgotten everything I had learned about our political system.

Does the same hold true for a Democrat President, Democrat Congress, and Democrat SCOTUS? I just want to see where this stands.


2006-05-17 9:33 AM
in reply to: #426149

User image

Giver
18426
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2

Scout7 - 2006-05-17 10:25 AM  Does the same hold true for a Democrat President, Democrat Congress, and Democrat SCOTUS? I just want to see where this stands.

Of course it does. Whenever all power is in the hands of a single party, it's dangerous.

2006-05-17 10:07 AM
in reply to: #426144

User image

Elite
2733
200050010010025
Venture Industries,
Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2
Jim: Doesn't congress have the power to override a presidential veto?
2006-05-17 10:11 AM
in reply to: #426109

User image

Master
4101
20002000100
Denver
Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2
shawn barr - 2006-05-17 7:52 AM

gullahcracker - 2006-05-17 7:20 AM
shawn barr - 2006-05-16 6:53 PM

OK...so maybe all the phone surveillance is a bad idea (I guess).  What do we do to insure that the world never has to see pics of people falling from terrorist bombed buildings again?  How soon we forget....

 ...I was going to post one; but thought better of it... 

I don't believe anyone has forgotten 911. Nor have we forgotten The KGB, Gestapo, Tiennenman Square, McCarthyism Black List, or any other over reaching effort of a government to restrict the freedoms of the people.  Fight any war you have to but my freedom/privacy will not be a casualty.
btw heard a Admin lackey aka Dir of Home Sec defending this practice yesterday. He assured us that they wern't collecting names just tele  numbers. Duh.

 I don't think anyone wants our freedoms or liberties restricted.  My point is that preventing 9/11 type terrorist attacks is not easy.  Surveillance (legal) will probably have to play a part.  And as I noted above, there is legal precedence for this type of activity as mentioned in the article.



I think that surveillance is a necessary and important part of preventing another attack, but that surveillance has to have some oversight, someone to say "we'll let you listen in or read this persons email, just tell us why" instead of the government listening in on whoever it thinks it needs to as it is doing now. It is a short step to abuses without someone looking over their shoulder.

I'm not sure how this is going to sound outside my head, but I think instead of trying to prevent every single terrorist act we are going to have to accept and learn to live with the risk of an attack as a byproduct of our freedom. Not that we shouldn't try to prevent attacks, but unless we want to live in a police state, the same freedoms that we are trying to export to the rest of the world are the ones that will allow someone to execute an attack. I think to some extent its an inverse relationship between freedoms and security - finding the right balance is the hard part, but debates like this are the only way we will find it.
2006-05-17 10:12 AM
in reply to: #424839

User image

Master
4101
20002000100
Denver
Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2
Actually Jim, Bush has been vetoing lots of laws he doesn't want to follow. About 750 of them. It's his line item veto called a signing statement.
2006-05-17 10:27 AM
in reply to: #426223

User image

Extreme Veteran
760
5001001002525
Provo, UT (my heart is in Seattle)
Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2
drewb8 - 2006-05-17 9:12 AM

Actually Jim, Bush has been vetoing lots of laws he doesn't want to follow. About 750 of them. It's his line item veto called a signing statement.


Weren't line item vetos ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the Clinton v New York case?



2006-05-17 10:30 AM
in reply to: #426219

User image

Master
2231
200010010025
Des Moines, Iowa
Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2
drewb8 - 2006-05-17 10:11 AM
shawn barr - 2006-05-17 7:52 AM

 I don't think anyone wants our freedoms or liberties restricted.  My point is that preventing 9/11 type terrorist attacks is not easy.  Surveillance (legal) will probably have to play a part.  And as I noted above, there is legal precedence for this type of activity as mentioned in the article.

I think that surveillance is a necessary and important part of preventing another attack, but that surveillance has to have some oversight, someone to say "we'll let you listen in or read this persons email, just tell us why" instead of the government listening in on whoever it thinks it needs to as it is doing now. It is a short step to abuses without someone looking over their shoulder. I'm not sure how this is going to sound outside my head, but I think instead of trying to prevent every single terrorist act we are going to have to accept and learn to live with the risk of an attack as a byproduct of our freedom. Not that we shouldn't try to prevent attacks, but unless we want to live in a police state, the same freedoms that we are trying to export to the rest of the world are the ones that will allow someone to execute an attack. I think to some extent its an inverse relationship between freedoms and security - finding the right balance is the hard part, but debates like this are the only way we will find it.

Yeah...living in a free country is going to make combating terrorism more difficult.  However, I'm not sure about accepting and learning to live with the risk is something anyone wants to do.  Hopefully, our laws against criminal activity (terrorism) are strong enough to reduce this risk to an very small level; if enforced correctly.

I think the jury is still out on whether there is not appropriate oversight or not.  It sounds like several judges and congress have known about this. 

2006-05-17 10:40 AM
in reply to: #426246

User image

Master
4101
20002000100
Denver
Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2
Drewwhite - 2006-05-17 9:27 AM

drewb8 - 2006-05-17 9:12 AM

Actually Jim, Bush has been vetoing lots of laws he doesn't want to follow. About 750 of them. It's his line item veto called a signing statement.


Weren't line item vetos ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the Clinton v New York case?



It's not an actual line-item veto, but he uses the signing statements as such. The most widely know example is the anti-torture law by McCain. Buch didn't want to sign it, but under pressure he did. But he stuck on a signing statement basically saying "well the way I interpret the constitution torture is ok, so even though I'm signing this law, I don't have to enforce it".

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bu...
2006-05-17 10:45 AM
in reply to: #426268

User image

Extreme Veteran
760
5001001002525
Provo, UT (my heart is in Seattle)
Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2
drewb8 - 2006-05-17 9:40 AM

Drewwhite - 2006-05-17 9:27 AM

drewb8 - 2006-05-17 9:12 AM

Actually Jim, Bush has been vetoing lots of laws he doesn't want to follow. About 750 of them. It's his line item veto called a signing statement.


Weren't line item vetos ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the Clinton v New York case?



It's not an actual line-item veto, but he uses the signing statements as such. The most widely know example is the anti-torture law by McCain. Buch didn't want to sign it, but under pressure he did. But he stuck on a signing statement basically saying "well the way I interpret the constitution torture is ok, so even though I'm signing this law, I don't have to enforce it".

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bu...

Oh. Thanks Drew. Great name by the way!

2006-05-17 11:07 AM
in reply to: #424839

User image

Master
4101
20002000100
Denver
Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2
Heh, I thought the same thing when I saw your name. Great minds....

Here's another example of a signing statement that goes to my concerns about oversight. from the Boston Globe article:

In December 2004, Congress passed an intelligence bill requiring the Justice Department to tell them how often, and in what situations, the FBI was using special national security wiretaps on US soil. The law also required the Justice Department to give oversight committees copies of administration memos outlining any new interpretations of domestic-spying laws. And it contained 11 other requirements for reports about such issues as civil liberties, security clearances, border security, and counternarcotics efforts.

After signing the bill, Bush issued a signing statement saying he could withhold all the information sought by Congress.

Likewise, when Congress passed the law creating the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, it said oversight committees must be given information about vulnerabilities at chemical plants and the screening of checked bags at airports.

It also said Congress must be shown unaltered reports about problems with visa services prepared by a new immigration ombudsman. Bush asserted the right to withhold the information and alter the reports.
2006-05-17 1:42 PM
in reply to: #426216

User image

Giver
18426
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2

ASA22 - 2006-05-17 11:07 AM Jim: Doesn't congress have the power to override a presidential veto?

Yeah, but since it requires 2/3 of both houses (I think?) to override, it's pretty rarely used.

What I'm not sure about is if congress does override a veto, is it then a done deal?



2006-05-17 1:54 PM
in reply to: #426548

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2
run4yrlif - 2006-05-17 2:42 PM

ASA22 - 2006-05-17 11:07 AM Jim: Doesn't congress have the power to override a presidential veto?

Yeah, but since it requires 2/3 of both houses (I think?) to override, it's pretty rarely used.

What I'm not sure about is if congress does override a veto, is it then a done deal?



Yes, it is. And yes, both the House and the Senate have to vote to overturn a full veto.
Additionally, regardless of who is in control, a Senator has the power to hijack ANY bill in the Senate by using a filibuster. Basically, the Senator(s) just fill time until they get their way.
2006-05-17 2:08 PM
in reply to: #426563

User image

Giver
18426
5000500050002000100010010010010025
Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2

Scout7 - 2006-05-17 2:54 PM ...a Senator has the power to hijack ANY bill in the Senate by using a filibuster. Basically, the Senator(s) just fill time until they get their way.

Except that the Republicans all but took that away with their threat of the "nuclear option."

2006-05-17 2:27 PM
in reply to: #426548

User image

Elite
2733
200050010010025
Venture Industries,
Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2
I pointed this out because I don't necessarily agree with your point that everything stops with the executive since he has veto power. There is a mechanism under which the Congress can override a presidential veto. Wether they exercise that option or not, or whether it is a difficult option isn't so much of an issue. The fact remains that there is an option. From 1968- 1998 there were 30 congressional overrides of presidential vetos. Ford was overridden 12 times of 28 vetos; Reagan was overridden 9 times of his 18 vetos, and Clinton and Bush Sr. were each overridden once.

Truth is there's enough blame to go around. Oddly I have confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court.
2006-05-17 2:53 PM
in reply to: #426582

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2
run4yrlif - 2006-05-17 3:08 PM

Except that the Republicans all but took that away with their threat of the "nuclear option."



Meaning that the Republicans were going to detonate a nuclear device somewhere in D.C.l? Personally, I'd go for that.

Or are you referring to something else?
2006-05-17 3:04 PM
in reply to: #424839

User image

Master
4101
20002000100
Denver
Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2
Jim I think the 'nucular option' is only really meant to apply to filibusters of judicial nominations not legislation.

The reason there are no over-rides is because Bush hasn't vetoed anything yet. He uses signing statements for that which can't be overridden.


2006-05-17 3:13 PM
in reply to: #426603

User image

Extreme Veteran
760
5001001002525
Provo, UT (my heart is in Seattle)
Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2
ASA22 - 2006-05-17 1:27 PM

Truth is there's enough blame to go around. Oddly I have confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court.


I think that most people tend to have more confidence in the Supreme Court because they are the most detached from politics and because we hear the least about what they do and the controversies that they cause. Also, they are allegedly the brightest legal minds in the nation, although if they are the brightest legal minds in the nation, we sure don't have many bright legal minds. We have had our fair share of incompetence on the court.

2006-05-17 3:44 PM
in reply to: #426632

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2
drewb8 - 2006-05-17 4:04 PM
The reason there are no over-rides is because Bush hasn't vetoed anything yet. He uses signing statements for that which can't be overridden.


And......? Every President has done this. Clinton used quite alot, and often times in a similar fashion as Bush does now.

If Congress does not approve of how the President handles the law, then said issue can be brought before the Supreme Court for review and ruling. The Court can give a judicial review if necessary, or I'm sure someone in Congress can get people to begin some legal review.
2006-05-17 3:58 PM
in reply to: #426694

User image

Master
4101
20002000100
Denver
Subject: RE: Domestic Surveilance Part 2
Scout7 - 2006-05-17 2:44 PM

drewb8 - 2006-05-17 4:04 PM
The reason there are no over-rides is because Bush hasn't vetoed anything yet. He uses signing statements for that which can't be overridden.


And......? Every President has done this. Clinton used quite alot, and often times in a similar fashion as Bush does now.

If Congress does not approve of how the President handles the law, then said issue can be brought before the Supreme Court for review and ruling. The Court can give a judicial review if necessary, or I'm sure someone in Congress can get people to begin some legal review.


Signing statements:
Reagan (8yrs): 71
Clinton (8yrs): 105
Bush (5 yrs): 750+

Court reviews are next to impossible since most of the statements deal with national security.

Check this out for the implications:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html
New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Domestic Surveilance Part 2 Rss Feed  
 
 
of 3