Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Codifying the rape of the Constitution

The fourth amendment is pretty simple to understand. People are to be secure in their personal effects, their homes, their communications, etc., from unreasonable search and seizure. Simple enough. Even President Bush can understand it. However, there seems to be a distinction being made in Washington between understanding out Constitution, and adhering to it. This is most famously evidenced by the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens by the NSA.

Now, apparently, there is a "compromise" being proposed by some members of the U.S. senate, including my buddy Sen. Mike DeWine of Ohio. The Bill being proposed would allow the current program to continue, under "strict oversight" by Senate and House committees set up to oversee the surveillance program. Under the legislation, any unwarranted wiretaps would be reviewed every 45 days. "At that time, the administration would have three options: apply for a warrant, if there is enough information to justify one; stop the surveillance; or explain to Congress why it is in the national security interest to continue the surveillance and why officials cannot apply to the FISA court for a warrant."

I'd just like to remind our legislators in Washington.... you can't legitimize violating the Constitution by codifying the violation. Making this a law does not repeal the fourth amendment. And who is to say that the administration's "explanation" as to why they can't get a warrant is going to be on the up-and-up?

And now we find out that after all the pretend outrage demonstrated by members of Congress and the Senate, there will be no formal investigation of the program will be conducted by the Senate Intelligence or Judicial committees, under coercive pressure from the White House. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the ranking democrat on the Intelligence committee was quoted as saying, "The committee is, to put it bluntly, basically under the control of the White House" and "This was an unprecedented bow to political pressure". Does anybody doubt at this point that the administration is trying to hide something regarding this program?

Lincoln (a Republican) said it best:

"Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

At this point, if that isn't a call to action, I don't know what is.

2 Comments:

At 11:27 PM, March 12, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe that when Prez Carter startd the FISA court he was undermining his own power as the head of the Executive; and this, being illegal under the constitution, makes the FISA court illegal itself, or at least moot.

 
At 12:34 AM, March 13, 2006, Blogger Marlipern said...

Hogwash. Yes, he was restricting the power of the executive, because as we could all see, it was being abused under Nixon.

If the FISA court were illegal or unconstitutional, as you suggest, don't you think Reagan, or G.H.W.Bush, or dubya would have challenged it?? Think. Don't just blindly believe what the right-wing talking heads tell you to believe, THINK. Use your brain - that's what God gave it to you for.

Before you decide to suggest something is unconstitutional, try actually READING the constitution. I don't mean the cliff-notes version, I mean the actual document. I even have a link to it on my blog. I've made it easy for even the thickest-skulled dubya-loving zombie to read the document that defines our republic.

So, I will go out on a limb here, and say that no constitutional scholar worth his salt would ever suggest that the FISA law is unconstitutional. If they thought they ever had a snowball's chance in hell of repealing it, Ashcroft or Gonzalez would have been all over it a long time ago.

I'll say it again... THINK.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home