Bush Raps Senators on Blocking Patriot Act

AP - The Sentinel ^ | Dec 17, 2005 | JENNIFER LOVEN

[Drammach]

Constitution bars federal troops on our borders.

Where did you get that idea?

[Yardstick]

Executive orders can be challenged by the Senate...It only takes a few senators to challenge an executive order and it does not take effect..

Are you sure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

...the Congress may also overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it or by refusing to approve funding to enforce it. Because the president retains the power to veto such a decision, however, the Congress usually needs a two-thirds majority to override a veto and truly end an executive order.

[Wolfie]

I've always considered it hilarious, in sad sort of way, that one of the few things our Federal government is Constitutionally authorized to do is one of the (very) few things it refuses to do.

[MWS]

I assumed that he probably thinks that habeas corpus somehow prevents the military from serving along the border. Nevermind that militaries, in normal societies, usually exist for the sole purpose of directly protecting the borders of their respective nations.

It wasn't relevant to my argument so I let it slide.

[Cboldt]

I assumed that he probably thinks that habeas corpusposse comitatus somehow prevents the military from serving along the border.

[MWS]

Ugh... thanks for the correction.

I get my terms mixed up at times...

[Drammach]

Executive Orders: Are you sure?

Pretty sure..
I remember reading about this some time ago, and I will have to see if I can find the source again..

The premise was that most executive orders go through (become "law" ) only because no senator bothers to challenge the president's authority to put it into effect..

But sometimes, Senators DO object to an executive order, and when that happens, it does NOT automatically become law..
So, when I say just a few senators, I mean that it takes more than just one, but not a 2/3 majority of the senate to make an objection to a proposed executive order..

IIRC, there is also a time factor..
The Senate is required to make their objections within a specific time frame as well..
Failure to do so means the executive order becomes law, "without comment" from the senate..

I will attempt to research and validate my claims..

[johnmecainrino]

Doesn't posse comitatus bar u.s troops from law enforcement on u.s soil.

That is why we have the border patrol and not our military on the border.

Posse Comitatus is one of the major reasons why we have had this invasion. If we had a military presence on the border their would have been no invasion.

It is ironic that a law that was supposed to help the states has swamped them with costs of illegals.


America should have a military presence on the border. Posse Comitatus should be changed.

[johnmecainrino]

This executive order is part of the 1978 law that allowed under extroadinary circumstances the president to use this power.

The key is what extroadinary means. Wouldn't congress need to pass a new law in order to overturn it since bush has the authority under existing law?

[mtnwmn]

Wonderful idea! Send it to Frist and the White House.

[MWS]

Protecting the borders isn't law enforcement. It is a matter of our nation protecting itself. Law enforcement involves using troops to enforce laws on American citizens, particularly in cities and towns.

Our troops, as soldiers, would be operating more according to their purpose there at the borders than they do stationed overseas.

Posse Comitatus is good. Our soldiers, as honorable as they may be, are human beings just like anyone else and are corruptable. Military forces enforcing the law have never been to the benefit of the people under their "care".

[Drammach]

Posse Comitatus restricts the U.S. Military from enforcing civilian law or assisting in law enforcement activities..
At least it did until the 90's, when that last part was changed to assist in the War On Drugs..
The military can now assist in some specific Drug Enforcement activities, and can provide logistic and material support ( Tanks, planes, etc..) to Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies..

However..
The Military is specifically authorized, empowered, required, by the Constitution to "Protect the Borders of the United States"..
That is part and parcel of their duties..

[mtnwmn]

So what has changed?

[Drammach]

Wouldn't congress need to pass a new law in order to overturn it since bush has the authority under existing law?

I don't want to comment on this at this point, because you've brought up a point I am unsure about..
I don't want to be making any rectal utterances..

Until I have had a chance to verify what I "think" I know, I would rather withhold comment..

[truth_seeker]

"That sort of depends on what you or I consider "significant".. and abuse is still abuse, whether you consider it significant or not.."

I know that during WWII our citizens and government took things seriously. I guess some peacetime notions about significance are changed.

We interned some Japanese, Italians and Germans. We executed some Germans, who came out of a sub on our Atlantic shore.

Our Supreme Court did not disapprove.

So you point out to me specific abuses that have taken place, and explain how they compare to the significance and potential loss of say another 3,000 lives, in another attack/war?

If the Patriot Act is used to thwart terrorism, I support it. That would include the fundraising.

If the Patriot Act is used to bust neighborhood gambling, bootleg liquor sales, ghetto/barrio prostitution and drug sales, I consider those abuses.

[MWS]

A question - do you believe that it was right to intern Americans of Japanese, Italian, and German descent, particularly when there was no proof that the individuals being detained had sympathies for the governments we opposed at the time?

The mere fact that the Supreme Court does not object to something does not make it right. The Supreme Court, remember, originally had few qualms with the Jim Crow laws.

It is impossible to pull out specific instances of abuse. It is an abuse if the government has "mistakenly" ran surveillance over people not involved in terrorist plots. Unfortunately, the Patriot Act more or less ensures that such "abuses" will never come to light.

I quote Section 213:

SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.

Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--

`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);

`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and

`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.
---------------------------------

Now, "mistakenly" running surveillance on an innocent person would certainly constitute an "adverse result" - if people knew that the Patriot Act was being misapplied, they would be less inclined to support it and they would take this valuable crime-fighting tool out of the hands of the government! Therefore, by the act's own words, it seems reasonable to expect that evidence of such searches will not be brought to light in a reasonably swift amount of time.

If the Patriot Act is used to thwart terrorism, I support it. That would include the fundraising.

If the Patriot Act is used to bust neighborhood gambling, bootleg liquor sales, ghetto/barrio prostitution and drug sales, I consider those abuses.

Do you truly believe that if evidence comes to light during a roving search regarding one of the latter cases you mentioned that it will not be used in a court of law?

[Yardstick]

If you manage to dig something up, I'd be interested in seeing it. However I think the basic premise that executive orders *become law* is incorrect. The president doesn't have the authority to create law, only the authority to direct the government so that the law is carried out. Since an executive order is an exercise of executive power rather than of legislative power, it seems to me that the congress would be overstepping into the executive domain if it had the formal power to override an executive order. If the Congress could decide which EO's stood and which didn't, then it would effectively be the ultimate executive authority, which would seem to go against basic separation-of-powers principles. But this is kind of a gray area since issuing an executive order is similar in some ways to passing a law. Hence the controversy around them, I guess.

[MWS]

That's why there is a need for another terrorist attack on US. It will make you pay attention to your own survival.

And I thought that the Democrats were sick.

Funny, I thought that the US is about freedom, not survival, and that enlarged government power runs contrary to society's ability to be free.

I was under the impression that such was fundamental to the conservative ideal.

[Drammach]

So you point out to me specific abuses that have taken place, and explain how they compare to the significance and potential loss of say another 3,000 lives, in another attack/war?

NO..

I refuse to play that game..
I cannot point out something that has been classified as "secret" under the Patriot Act, and therefore is not available for me to use as "evidence" of abuses..
If the Federal Courts and federal judges, and defense attorneys are unable to get that information, how do you expect ME to get it.. ??

The constitution has specific provisions concerning this sort of thing..
It's called the Bill of Rights...

I said it before, and I will repeat myself, just this once..
I refuse to ignore the constitution when it becomes "inconvenient" for me..

I should not have to explain that to you.. EVER..