Posted on 02/14/2006 6:02:18 PM PST by mdittmar
Congress appeared ready to launch an investigation into the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program last week, but an all-out White House lobbying campaign has dramatically slowed the effort and may kill it, key Republican and Democratic sources said yesterday.
The Senate intelligence committee is scheduled to vote tomorrow on a Democratic-sponsored motion to start an inquiry into the recently revealed program in which the National Security Agency eavesdrops on an undisclosed number of phone calls and e-mails involving U.S. residents without obtaining warrants from a secret court. Two committee Democrats said the panel -- made up of eight Republicans and seven Democrats -- was clearly leaning in favor of the motion last week but now is closely divided and possibly inclined against it.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Guess they looked at the polls.
A good offense by the President trumps the morons!
Senate intelligence committee member Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) said in an interview that he supports the NSA program and would oppose a congressional investigation. He said he is drafting legislation that would "specifically authorize this program" by excluding it from the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which established a secret court to consider government requests for wiretap warrants in anti-terrorist investigations.An interesting approach -- I'm not sure what to make of it, likewise with Specter's preliminary comments. More details to come, no doubt.The administration would be required to brief regularly a small, bipartisan panel drawn from the House and Senate intelligence committees, DeWine said, and the surveillance program would require congressional reauthorization after five years to remain in place.
How about if people think democrats are trying to get us killed?
Good for Dewine.
You bastard!
An interesting approach but wrong,the Legislative branch cannot dictate to or usurp the powers of the Executive branch.
Translation: Dems figured out how badly this bit of sedition is hurting themselves and helping Bush.
Just as I thought.
This was never about the program. It's about the struggle of power between the branches that has always existed. Well, and for the Democrats about partisanship. But from Specter's standpoint it's all about jealously hoarding his "status" and grasped power. Ditto the other RINO's.
"The administration has obviously gotten the message that they need to be more forthcoming," Snowe said.
Think so?
The White House characterized last week's closed-door briefings to the full committees as a significant concession and a sign of the administration's respect for Congress and its oversight responsibilities.
Or, in real speak, the administration realized their delicate egos needed stroking. Realized it was a small price to pay given the program was already revealed, indulged their egos, and covered their butts after they foolishly jumped the gun and joined the Dems at the beginning.
The President has the Constitutional power to do as he has done, but if Congress wants to put it in writing that he do as he has been doing, fine, whatever. Waste of time but if it makes them "feel good".... This legislation won't strip what the Constitution authorizes, only erase the "grey" area that has napolitano apolectic.
He better be good, he's running for re-election here in mighty Ohio and he's not been too impressive as of late.
GWB and the GOP need to do more "lobbying".
Nor can legislation extend the power of the executive branch beyond it's Constitutional limit. But that does not prevent Congress from attempting to create "safe harbors" for executive action.
Let me ask your opinion. Do you think Fisa should be struck down as unconstitutional and limiting Presidential powers?In a word, "no," but for a different reason than has been expressed in any of the talking head or recent legal critiques.
The administration and [the] efficient serving of justice benefit from the structure of FISA. When it's talked of as being potentially unconstitutional, keep in mind that outcome can go in two radically different directions. Unconstitutional as an impermissible encroachment on a President's power to conduct surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, and/or unconstitutional as providing insufficient protection for encroachment on the people's 4th amendment right, for "non foreign intelligence purposes."
There is a significant body of law, pre-FISA, so it's obvious that the system can function with FISA dismantled. But I think the result would be messy while the Courts sorted it out. There is value in having Congress, the President and the Courts singing from the same hymnal.
The history of FISA is pretty interesting. SCOTUS suggested a Congressional measure, President Ford offered up model statutory language. FISA wasn't "just" Congress asserting itself over the President.
*He said he is drafting legislation that would "specifically authorize this program" by excluding it from the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,*
Why? Is the constitutional authority the president has not enough? This upcoming piece of legislation can't trump the constitution no matter what is written in it.
*There is value in having Congress, the President and the Courts singing from the same hymnal.*
But once congress gets the idea they can authorize something, they will also get the idea that they can later UNauthorize it.
Good point. Maybe better to have the Court handle the debate, instead of Congress. Naturally, they won't handle it until a case appears - I'm not suggesting that they get involved in advance.
At some point, the branches of government butt heads. It's the nature of our form of government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.