Sunday, 12 of February of 2012

Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

In a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.

• About
• Ask for Help
• FAQ
• Posting a Diary
• Report Abusive Behavior
• Rules of the Road

Print

Barack Obama: Bush Broke the Law, So Do Nothing

Stop being a coward, Senator Obama. Co-sponsor the resolution by Russ Feingold to censure George W. Bush.

Thanks to Frank Mullen for forwarding to us his copy of a letter sent to him by the staff of Barack Obama on behalf of the United States Senator. In this letter, Barack Obama tries to explain why he has defended George W. Bush, and refused to help Senator Russell Feingold advance a resolution of censure.

Obama’s letter boils down to these two points:

1. President Bush broke the law:

“No president should be allowed to knowingly and willing flout our laws, and I believe the President exceeded his authority with his domestic wiretapping program. The justifications offered – that the president possesses inherent presidential authority under Article II, or was granted that authority in the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force — seem to contradict prior precedent and our constitutional design.”

2. I’m not going to do anything about it, even though the Senate has the authority to legally try the President for his crimes, and censure him or remove him from office.

“Ultimately, this debate must be resolved by the courts.”

Senator Obama, I’m going to put this in plain words so that no one can mistake my meaning: You are being a coward.

It is not the place of the courts to decide whether President George W. Bush broke the law. The Constitution of the United States is very clear on this matter. It is the power of the Senate to put the President on trial for high crimes.

But the thing is, Senator Obama, Russ Feingold isn’t even proposing putting George W. Bush on trial. He’s only calling for a censure. A censure doesn’t require a trial, or a finding by the courts. The Senate has the power to censure the President whenver it finds that the President has behaved in a grossly inappropriate manner.

You know this, Senator Obama, but you refuse to act. Shame on you.

Stop being a coward, Senator Obama. Co-sponsor the resolution by Russ Feingold to censure George W. Bush.

---

Date: April 4, 2006

Author: jclifford

Categories: democrats, general, legislation

Tags:

(529 votes, average: 3.03 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Leave a comment

Comments RSS TrackBack 1 comment

• 

  James

  in April 5th, 2006 @ 01:10

  jclifford wrote:

  “…..Senator Obama, I’m going to put this in plain words so that no one can mistake my meaning: You are being a coward…..”

  James replies:

  I agree that Obama may be a coward about certain aspects of this, but I think it goes too far to say “he plans to do to nothing” about it.

  My take on his letter was that he earnestly tried to share his view of what he thinks is a more effective and long term “win” on the issue of reining in Bush and future presidents in this issue. For one thing, he points out that it could be hard to prove to anyone *what was in the intention of Bush* in terms of going aroudn the law….. a good faith or bad faith interpretation. So he sees proving that as a long shot whether in court or in convincing anyone else to go with a censure. He also tried to share is view of what he wants to do about it, which is 1. get the courts to make more clear cut decisions so it is easier in the future to prove that a president has exceeded authority without this slushy factor of presidential “good faith”. Also, tighten up the law from a legislative branch standpoint to reinforce what the courts do and assure their clearer decisions in the future. That is a big chunk of work, with a solid long term view in mind. Along this line he wrote:

  —–
  “…………Some constitutional scholars and lower court opinions support the president’s argument that he has inherent authority to go outside the bounds of the law in monitoring the activities of suspected terrorists. The question is whether the president understood the law and knowingly flaunted it, or whether he and his aides, in good faith, interpreted their authority more broadly than I and others believe the law allows.?
  —–

  Obama also points out, rightly I think, that it would be NEGLIGENT, to think of a censure as
  changing presidential behavior (now by Bush or any future presidents). Negligent to not make the efforts he described for long term solutions….as further quoted below:

  “…………Also, a censure resolution does nothing to deal with the underlying problem of unchecked executive power. It would not force the president to modify his domestic surveillance program or force the Senate Intelligence Committee to do its job. In order to do that, Congress must reassert its constitutional role in overseeing the domestic surveillance program. And it should bring the warrantless wiretapping program back under the authority of the court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Therefore, my focus is on crafting an effective surveillance program that both combats terrorism and contains meaningful judicial review of wiretapping, which is the most effective way to restore balance …..”

  In sum, I think he saw the ability to get the censure to really happen was slippery and a relative waste of his time and his political chips. He’d rather investment himself in more solid and longer running solutions.

  He’s biting off a lot to chew over the long haul. He’s not lazy. He’s not unconcerned. He doesn’t say he will do nothing. He just wants a big hit and a solid hit.

  YMMV

  James

  ---

Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion uses WordPress as content manager.