OK, THAT'S IT! I AM PISSED! Does everyone here get it or not?

[jsamuel]

We need to contact REPUBLICAN SENATORS, not about the illegal wiretapping, but about the argument used to defend the illegal wiretapping, namely "inherent authority." Gonzo, yesterday, tried to tell Congress with a straight face that the "inherent authority" of the President, as is in the Constitution, gives the President the authority to IGNORE LAWS PASSED BY THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. This flies in the face of EVERYTHING CONGRESS HAS EVER KNOWN. It flies in the face of every Republican in Congress who wants power for that matter.

The Republicans KNOW that they cannot let this contradiction BROUGHT UP BY the illegal wiretapping stand. They think that if they shew away the wiretapping issue by consulting the Bush Admin (the hearings) and changing the law so that the violation no longer exists, then all their problems are solved and they don't need to oppose or impeach their President.

However, two Republicans (fortunately on the Judiciary Committee) realized that the illegal wiretapping is really not the problem here, rather the argument for defending the wiretapping that is the BIG issue that threatens the Constitution, the Law of the United States, and the Separation of Powers. Essentially, the argument being used, the "inherent authority", is an attempt by the Bush Administration to effectively leave Congress powerless.

If you understand anything about our constitution, then you must understand that by letting the President ignore the law Congress makes, then you are destroying America. The founding fathers based this country on the idea of Separation of Powers. If the President is able to circumvent both the Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch, then we are in a dictatorship. Even if you trust Bush, the next president (maybe a Dem even) could use this as precedent to take total control of the government because he would be immune from law.

WE MUST UNDERSTAND WHAT THE REAL ISSUE HERE IS! Not the wiretapping (which is important), but the assertion by the Bush Administration that the President has the authority to seize control of the American government because he is no longer checkable by the Legislative or Judicial Branches.

This is it folks. This is what a dictatorial power grab looks like.

We MUST get Republicans on our side NOW! They must understand that making warrantless wiretapping legal will not solve the issue that the Bush Administration is trying to make Congress powerless. Any time the same issue comes up, the Bush Administration will use the same argument. For example, Bush asserting that he has the power to basically ignore the anti-torture bill. Or any of the other programs that Gonzales would not tell us about at the hearings.

The only solution to this problem is the prosecution of the Bush Administration for breaking the law, period.

I have set up a website to help, but you can contact the senators any way you want:
http://truthdigger.blogspot.com/2006/02/senator-russ-feingold-asks-us-to-call.html
also see the related DU thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=347473&mesg_id=347473

FAX NUMBERS FOR Judiciary Committee Repubs:
United States Senate
Committee on the Judiciary
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Specter [phone]
Hatch [phone]
Kyl [phone]
DeWine [phone]
Sessions [phone]
Graham [phone]
Cornyn [phone]
Brownback [phone]
Coburn [phone]

[cantstandbush]

1. I agree with you! n/t

[jsamuel]

2. Great!

:hi:

[classof56]

3. You are exactly right. I've said this before on DU:

In my opinion, Congress is on the verge of voting itself out of a job. It started when they appointed Roberts and Alito. At this rate, with the Unitary-President-advocating Justices, the Legislative branch will be totally irrelevant and they might as well fold up their tents and slink out of DC. And they can quit getting their paychecks, too. I'm sure Bush's rich buddies will love the money that will free up for additional tax breaks.

There's still time for Congress to stiffen their collective spines, impeach Bush, get rid of his crowd and give us our country back. There's still time--but not much.

God help us all.

Tired Old Cynic

[Boo Boo]

4. "Inherent" in this case means "We're just makin' this shit up!" /nt

[tularetom]

5. Yeah but if this is ever tested in court

and gets appealed right on up to the supremes, whaddya think is going to happen?

[Katherine Brengle]

7. VERY dangerous. If it were upheld, that would give future

Presidents unchecked authority across the board.

This is extremely dangerous territory, and not in the DLC way.

[jsamuel]

8. Right, which is exactly why I opposed Alito so strongly, but if we can get

a strong majority of the Senate and later the house, then it will have an effect on the Supreme Court's decision.

[BR_Parkway]

38. Congress could still revoke the funding, even if the SCOTUS

did say King George was right. That's another one of the checks the framers put into the Constitution - they wanted to make sure that 2 couldn't agree to over-ride the 3rd branch completely.

[LittleClarkie]

6. Wanna get a Republican on your side?

Suggest that Hillary Clinton may some day also have this "inherent authority". That oughta do it.

[jsamuel]

10. Exactly!

This shouldn't be too hard for us to reason with the Republican Senators. It is a pretty obvious problem. It would be a problem for any president after this, including Democrats like Hillary.

[Virginian]

66. Senator George Allen is not going against the White House.

First of all, he always supports the views of the Bush Admin.
Second, he expects to be the recipient of the powers the Bushies have stolen from the other branches of the government.

He doesn't represent me or any other voter in Virginia. He is only in it for himself and will do anything he can to be in good graces with this White House.

And third, Rove has threatened anyone who goes against the Bushies.

[pberq]

61. So you really think there will be anything resembling fair elections

in this country? What's to stop the pattern of stolen elections continuing?

Just a little reminder of a part of what happened in 2000:

http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/06/02/far06002.html

. . . Unless you rely solely on FOX news (the modern equivalent to "living under a rock"), the shenanigans that occurred in pre-election Florida are now old news, and have been dissected at length in documentaries, magazines and to some degree, in the mainstream press. A St . Petersburg Times op-ed later deemed the election "stolen," the Associated Press reported that Florida had "quietly" admitted "election fraud," and Vanity Fair devoted a sizable portion of its Oct. 2004 issue to exactly how Team Bush pulled it off. By the time CNN sued the state of Florida for its ineligible voters list in 2004, the underbelly of the beast was plainly visible.

But in Nov. 2001, when Greg Palast uncovered then Secretary of State Katherine Harris' role in the shameful voter roll purge in Florida, the news was explosive. The New York Times -- the paper that would later print front page disinformation to sell the war in Iraq -- took a pass, however, until three years later, when it was too late to do anything about it.

[sendero]

9. The thing they REALLY need to get...

... is that the executive will not always be a Republican, and they don't want a Democratic king, just as I don't want a king from either party.

[pberq]

39. There's one problem with this argument:

The last two elections were rigged. What's to stop them from doing it again and again?

[stillcool]

11. The Alito appointment...

has sealed our fate....I would very much like to know how many emails, phone-calls, and faxes were received by those representing we the people, through that debacle.

[imagine80]

14. Fascism

Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control

[glitch]

17. That's the revised definition. Before the 80s the definition included

corporate partnership.

[imagine80]

18. absolutely right

missed crucial detail

[glitch]

28. Hey! I forgot to welcome you to DU! On me:

:toast: Welcome to DU!

[imagine80]

33. Thank You!

[Poiuyt]

20. You're right imagine80, our country is now a fascist regime

We need to start screaming it and educating people so they realize what we have become.

And welcome to DU!

[newyawker99]

80. Hi imagine80!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[OzarkDem]

12. Thanks for the clarification

I'll get to work on my Repub senators. I understood the issue, just wasn't sure who you wanted us to call. The web site is a very big help.

Thanks, sweetie, don't get all mad.

;)

[jsamuel]

21. Thank You!

I am not mad at DU, rather VERY CONCERNED that people weren't seeing what I was seeing so much (but that was my fault). What made me mad was the Bush Admin and Gonzo's argument. I just needed to express myself and needed to be heard. It took a lot out of me to make this post.

Thanks,
:hi:

[annabanana]

13. Here are the fax numbers of Judiciary Repubs..

"Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their Country"
ask them
DO WE HAVE A CONGRESS??

United States Senate
Committee on the Judiciary
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Specter [phone]
Hatch [phone]
Kyl [phone]
DeWine [phone]
Sessions [phone]
Graham [phone]
Cornyn [phone]
Brownback [phone]
Coburn [phone]

[jsamuel]

15. Thank you, will add

[0007]

22. I think ya got a good shot at Specter, Maybe Hatch. DeWine

and Brownback. Maybe Graham, just maybe.

I think Sessions, Kyl, Cornyn and Coburn is a waste of time, but should be contacted.

[alfredo]

31. Rove has warned them to back off or lose party $upport.

I hope their response to Rove's threat is swift and brutal.

[0007]

36. I understand. Isn't that a form of black mail?

If they tell Rove to fuck off, then their career is in jeopardy?

[alfredo]

48. That's what it looks like to me. Because they were doing their

constitutional duties, other laws may have been broken.

[0007]

76. These fucker just keep breaking laws one after another.

And they say Rove is sharp. Rove is fucking stupid.

[alfredo]

78. Stupid with a baseball bat can still beat you to death.

If the Republicans do not stand up to his threats then they have no balls. How can they keep us safe from Osama when they are afraid of a chicken hawk like Rove.

[emulatorloo]

34. Specter and Graham both seemed to get it

Cornyn etc don't care as long as they get their payoff from Rove (or whoever it is)

[texpatriot2004]

16. I hate Dictators. You are 100% on the mark here. Thanks for the

link to the site.

[jsamuel]

19. Thank you for reading.

Took a lot out of me to post this one.

[texpatriot2004]

23. I can imagine that it would. I agree though, the illegal wiretapping

is bad, but it's NOT the point...heretofore, legitimate Presidents of the United States of America are not above the U. S. Constitution nor were they above the laws of this land - with this evil bastard and his crony friends all of that is in jeopardy.

No President is above the law! Period.

[KelleyKramer]

24. Remind them that Bush is blackmailing them into giving him ...

I agree with your point, and the Bush WH has threatened to blacklist any Repub that doesnt vote in their favor, withdrawing support and money for any of their re-election campaigns.

Yes, BushCo is asking for dictator powers.. and remind these Senators that Bush is trying to blackmail them into giving him total power above the congress and the law.

[stop the bleeding]

25. Your right - I always feel like your little robot cat is going to walk out

of the post/screen.

K&R

[jsamuel]

27. LOL!

It isn't a cat, it is a Mog. It is from a video game called "Final Fantasy". It is actually bipedal.

Thanks for the laugh.

[stop the bleeding]

29. Mog or not - it looks like a tough asskicking cat on a mission -

A mission to Take Back America - it is even red white and blue how appropriate

[samhsarah]

26. Thanks for the website you set up.....K&R

I will start calling.

[ClayZ]

30. K and R

Thanks! :kick:

[donco6]

32. This could be our Reichstag Fire.

If this power is confirmed, there's no point for Congress to exist. It might as well be disbanded.

[emulatorloo]

35. Oh, I get it. And I will try to get it thru the thick skull of my senator

EOM

[rucky]

37. Was I being too nice to DeWine?

Dear Senator,

As you preside over the NSA wiretapping hearings, I urge you to denounce the practice admitted to by the Bush Administration. Warantless wiretapping of citizens was not the intent of Congress when granting executive powers to fight the war on terror. How and why they are utilizing these wiretaps is immaterial, given the ease of obtaining FISA warrants, and the general support of our war on terror.

There are only two possible explanations for the White House challenges to the Fourth Amendment and FISA that I can think of:

1) The wiretapping conducted was not related to counterterrorist activities.

2) The executive branch is challenging the law in order to expand executive authority in a time of war.

Either way, I cannot imagine any Legislator - Democrat or Republican - being in support of such action.

I urge you to pursue this issue earnestly - independent of internal political pressure - and remain mindful of the serious implications and dangerous precedent that is at stake here.

Sincerely,

(rucky)
Sidney, OH

[jsamuel]

40. Thats good

[pbear81]

41. I get it, but I reject your premise.

Look:
Your premise is GWB and his people are willfully asserting they are above the law.

But there is a reasonable legal argument that they are hanging their hats on.

The Constitution, not just FISA, authorizes the President to carry out electronic surveillance. At least five federal appellate decisions stand for the proposition that the President has the constitutional authority under Article II to order warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence gathering purposes. The FISA court of appeals wrote in 2002, that if FISA tried to limit the President's Article II power to conduct warrantless surveillance, FISA would be unconstitutional to that extent.

Section 109 of FISA also says that FISA does not apply where surveillance is "authorized by statute." Relying on the precedent set in the Hamdi case, the administration argues that Congress's Authorizaton for the Use of Military Force authorizes intercepting enemy intelligence, which is a "fundamental and accepted incident of war."

Experts on the law may agree or disagree. But it is not accurate to say the administration in this context is deliberately usurping authority they know they don’t have. They believe they have the legal authority under existing law and precedent.

One may ask, well, why not put it to Congress to specifically authorize the type of program the NSA is pursuing. But it’s preposterous to suppose 535 members could keep the nature of the program secret while they consider whether to make its legality explicit.

[jsamuel]

44. You sound like Alberto Gonzales himself

First off, no where in the constitution does it say that the President can ignore law passed by Congress. "the constitutional authority under Article II to order warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence gathering purposes" Bull, the constitution says nothing about electronic surveillance.

Second, you are giving a false statement here: "The FISA court of appeals wrote in 2002, that if FISA tried to limit the President's Article II power to conduct warrantless surveillance, FISA would be unconstitutional to that extent." The case you are referring to had nothing to do with ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE.

Third, the Section 109 crap drew teeth even from Specter who couldn't believe that Alberto Gonzales would use such a asinine approach to the law. FISA clearly outlaws electronic surveillance.

You are trying to have it both ways. You contend that it is both complying with FISA, and when people point out that it doesn't you try to say that FISA is unconstitutional, which NO COURT HAS RULED THAT SO. So, it no longer matters that FISA is constitutional or not, because when they authorized the program it had not been challenged and what they did was clearly illegal.

So they are asking to be above the law, plain and simple.

[MadHound]

46. Sorry, but the wiretaps ARE unconstitutional

Bushco can pull whatever bullshit legal theories out of his ass that he wants, but it still doesn't make his position either legal or Constitutional. Many, many constitutional lawyers and scholars, both liberal and conservative, have come out directly against Bush and his legal theorists. I suggest that you read them, and rethink your position. Here are some links:

<http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/02/02/specialists_doubt_legality_of_wiretaps/>
<http://www.npr.org/news/specials/nsawiretap/legality.html>
<http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/local/13779705.htm?source=rss&channel=grandforks_local>
<http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/conservative-scholars-argue-bush%25e2%2580%2599s-wiretapping-is-an-impeachable-offense/>
<http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2006/01/why_the_nsa_sur.html>
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701476.html>

Stop relying on Bushco BS and the media spin, they are inherently unreliable. These warrantless wiretaps are unconstitutional, and against the law, and since Bush broke this law, repeatedly, then he should be impeached because of that.

[atommom]

42. Damn you, Sam!

(I'll refine my message just a little bit before I call, but that's the jist of it...)

[The White Tree]

43. In watching Gonzales at the Judiciary hearing

One thing that struck me was how often he was asked by both Republican and Democratic Senators about spying within the United States and whether that was being done if for example they had 2 suspected Al-Queda operatives talking to each other within the United States.

Whenever asked about that Gonzales seemed to go out of his way to say that the NSA was not doing that kind of spying "under this program". Most of the Senators seemed to be saying things along the lines of, if we are not, then we really should be looking into doing that.

But I wonder if maybe the NSA is not already engaged in domestic spying in another capacity that is not under this particular program which perhaps has not been discoverred yet.

To reiterate, whenever he was asked about domestic spying in this fashion he never actually denied (at least to my knowledge) that it was being done. Rather he just kept insisting to them that it was not being done under this program.

Perhaps there is a thread to pick at and run with there that could at least some Senators of both parties to push for more disclosure into what the programs are. I think that is what the administration most fears right now is that the more people find out about these programs, the less likely they are to agree with them.

Just my 2 cents.

[pbear81]

45. The FBI counterterrorism group

would be the logical place for eavesdropping on 2 Al Qaeda members, both within the US. Patriot Act?

Seriously, can you guys imagine 535 members of Congress keeping operational details secret if there is more disclosure about this? 535 egos resisting the opportunity to illustrate what they know?

Let's assume Gonzales is wrong in his legal arguments.
That's not the same as saying they don't believe in good faith they have legal authority to pursue this necessary program under existing law.
I reject the premise that this is just a power grab, an attempt to establish a dictatorship, or anything of the sort.
But throw them all in jail.
Put Joh Kerry there and have him protect us from Al Qaeda plots without benefit of these secret programs.

[jsamuel]

50. Ok, if they "think" they were doing it legally...

(I kind of associate this with the category of: "Well, I didn't know it was illegal." defense, which as we all know, never holds up in court.)

But, the argument that they are using is that FISA is unconstitutional because "inherent authority" gives the President the right to ignore laws passed by Congress.

That is their argument.

I have already outlined why that is not the case.


You make the point that they are just using the argument, "they don't really mean to say that the President is immune from law, period." Whether that is what they are trying to say or not is irrelevant. The argument itself states that. If they use this argument and it succeeds or is ruled a valid argument, then the President is henceforth immune from laws of Congress. It will be a dictatorship. Whether or not Bush or the next president (Democrat or Republican) intends to use this is another question, but as history has shown us, people like Hitler seem to always be waiting in the wings for just such a moment. It will give whoever wants to abuse the power the green light.

[dh1760]

58. There is no possible way that anything "secret" can be disclosed ...

to Congress, with the expectation that it will be kept secret.

There are too many people working for our government (be they in Congress or one of the agencies potentially gaining access to sensitive information) who presume that "sunlight" is an absolutely good thing and secrecy is an absolutely bad thing. They feel that nothing should ever be hidden from the public, regardless of the potential value of the information. They equate secrecy with conspiracy and have no ability to discern between the two.

Worse, as you indicated ("535 egos resisting the opportunity to illustrate..."), far too many of our esteemed congress persons and their staff members, feel that the publicity and personal political gain from exposing something far outweighs the loss to the nation of a valuable tool for exposing terrorism, treason, etc.

[ProfessorGAC]

67. And That's A Problem How?

Your post seemed to stop short of making a point. If your point was that it's hard to keep a secret when lots of people already know it, you win the Captain Obvious award. If your point was that secrecy from the government is a good thing because the gov't needs to protect us, you LOSE the Captain Courageous award.
The Professor

[dh1760]

71. I'm not looking for a Captain anything award. My point is ...

that Congress always feels someone is trying to hide something from them, when they are not consulted on absolutely every detail. However, when they are consulted, it is almost a guarantee that they will expose the details to public view, whether because they feel sunshine is a must or because they can't help themselves from seeking the spotlight. They can't have it both ways.

As for the Captain Courageous award, the notion that the government doesn't require the ability to do some amount of surveillance in secret, in order to reasonably protect the public, is simply utopian. You will probably say that I am trading liberty for protection, and I will agree. Forgive my lack of adherence to the Patrick Henry school of thought, but, I am willing to do so, to give myself and my loved ones the chance to be alive with something less than absolute liberty, rather than in my grave with all my liberties intact.

I am aware that this is not a popular stance to take on this board. But, whether you think my opinion has any validity or not, a discussion board without occasional opposing commentary is nothing more than a pep rally.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dh1760]

77. Professor, without resorting to name calling, would you mind ...

explaining what methods you feel can be appropriately undertaken in order to reasonably protect the country from terrorist attacks? Is it your point of view that no process which attempts to gather enough information to stop an attack before it happens is permissible?

Another question: if the Constitution was written now, given the current state of the world and the vast array of groups bent on the destruction of this country, do you think the framers would have come up with exacty the same principles?

I may be a dolt, but I am willing to be educated.

[jsamuel]

74. You are ignoring the Constitution of the United States.

By doing so, you are damaging this country.

[bob-calhoun]

47. Specter can be swayed.

Thank you for posting this but we must urge all Pennsylvania democrats to flood Senator Specter's office with calls to rule against Bush and to also support the democrats on the committee in putting Administration officials under oath. Kerry carried Pennsylvania by a wide margin. Santorum looks like he is going to lose his senate seat there later this year. Penn. is a blue state. Specter is already sympathetic (for a republican) so a deluge of calls from his actual constituents can actually do some good here. Also, let's try to get the machinery of the Democratic Party behind these efforts.

[jsamuel]

49. thanks, good post, nice points

[bob-calhoun]

79. The Voters of Pennsylvania have the Power over Specter, not Rove.

I feel so much like my hands are tied on this living in California. I mean I did call Feinstein a lot urging her to oppose Alito and support the filibuster and I do feel that the efforts of so many Californians such as myself did some good. (Boxer I never have to worry about so I just send her emails and letters of support from time to time.) But now that Feinstein has supported the filibuster against Alito, I feel I have no one to write. Hopefully all of the people from Pennsylvania who are reading DU and the Huffington Post and Daily Kos will start pressuring Specter. Rove can make all of the threats he wants but in the end, the voters of Pennsylvania have way more power over Specter than dumb ol' Rove does.

[ClintonTyree]

51. Absolutely.....

this is what I conveyed in mass faxes yesterday. I never once mentioned that I was a Democrat, I never mentioned the illegal wiretaps. I did however tell them that THEIR POWER was being usurped, that the President was negating their power to legislate.
In short, I sort of challenged their manhood. I asked if they were going to let someone kick sand in their faces and ignore their POWER. It's ALL ABOUT power to these guys, and telling them that their power is being usurped is the best way to get them to listen. At least that's what I figured. :shrug: I doubt it will do any good. These GOP assholes don't care about eh country anyway, just their party. They stick together like lemmings off a cliff. :eyes:

[valerief]

52. So inhererent authority makes Congress obsolete, right?

That means the lobbyists go straight to the WH and skip Congress. Ah, I see how it works now.

I swear, in ten years, we'll all be squatting and picking at the barren U.S. soil looking for food. The powers that be will be living on Mars and harvesting us as a food source.

[Dembo98]

53. HMMMMm

Pbear 81 is on to something. In Constitutional cases, we look to the courts (obviously). And it looks like (using Keith, Troung, and Hamdi cases) precedent has clearly been set. Warrantless searches have been upheld. It seems that anyone could look at this precedent and assume that the Prez had the authority, or at least see why he thought he had the authority. I know the Constitution doesn't specifically say he has the power, but most of our govt's programs aren't listed in the Constitution either. I'm still not sure this is a fight we can win and am worried that it does make us look weak on security and we should be hammering W and his aristocracy on issues that aren't so grey. Until we can show one case where these NSA wiretaps were used for other than foreign intelligence gathering, the 4rth amendment concerns are purely hypothetical aren't they?

[jsamuel]

54. I set up a thread at DKOS with the same info

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/8/132136/6296

[orleans]

55. i heard (radio) that someone had suggested making the law

RETROACTIVE!

so that way bushie won't have broken any law.

but retroactive won't help the next time unless we make that retroactive too

and it will be a lesson for bushie that he can keep dancing above the laws

and the laws congress passes mean SHIT!

bushie's motto: retroactive again and again and again.

[Justice Is Comin]

56. Damn skippy.

Gonzalez vascillated between that and the AUMF. It was like watching a tennis ball go back and forth over the net. Presidential inherent authority ends at the doors of Congress.

I felt strong flashbacks to the Alito debacle. Our senators, with the exception of Feingold, are too patronizing and don't pin down precise answers to their questions. Even Leahy's statement is great for the record but it didn't do a thing to remove that nauseating grin from Gonzalez. The object should be subjecting him to short questions, and demanding yes or no answers, designed to make him lose his composure. Feingold came very close to that.

I was amazed to see several of the Republicans, other than Specter, take him to task. This is what is stimulating the latest people to come forward such as Wilson, calling for full scale investigation.

Witnesses now that will impeach Gonzalez will turn up the heat, especially Comey or Ashcroft if they confirm they rejected signing on. Right now, it's like one hand clapping.

:kick: and :thumbsup:

[MockSwede]

57. DONE

I hope you don't mind me extracting and editing your argument. I found it mirrored my sentiments and I wouldn't have said it much differently. I've already emailed my senators and HR and now I'm working on this list.

Thanks.

IMPEACH THAT FASCIST PUPPET DICTATOR BUSH!


Or join all the other 'terrorists' and 'enemies of the State' in the newly reopened WWII internment camps across the US!

[jsamuel]

59. no, don't mind at all

thanks!

[nosferaustin]

60. As a Hatch constituent...

Sent him the following today, as well as Bennett...worthless P.O.S. that they are...

I urge you to support a full Congressional investigation into the alleged illegal wiretapping by the NSA on order from the president. As inclined as you seem to be to believe that we need this program to stop terrorists from attacking again, the issue here is not, as Attorney General Gonzalez would have us believe, a security program aimed at catching terrorists. The issue, which is being somewhat glossed over in the attempt to look tough on catching the bad guys is that the President of the United States of America and the executive branch of the government is claiming that it has the “inherent right” under the Constitution to IGNORE THE LAWS OF CONGRESS. This is, in a word, FALSE. And if you, sir, sit idly by and this becomes the new standard of executive behavior, you are allowing the Bush administration to re-write the Constitution single-handedly and potentially destroy the very fabric of the systems of checks and balances that has withstood attack, conflict, dissent and turmoil for over two hundred years.

When you were sworn in, you took the following oath, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” Your job, Senator – your DUTY to your country before the eyes of your constituents and before the eyes of your God by whose very name you swore this oath, you have a moral obligation to protect not this president, not your political party, not your position, but the CONSTITUTION of the United States.
Neither you nor the president took an oath to protect the citizens of this country. To hear the president continually claim that to do so is his number one priority only proves that he has no intention of following his oath of office. Your oath is to protect the Constitution. The Constitution will protect us.

I demand that you face this Constitutional challenge head on, stand up to your party-line, stop this insane attempt to thwart the very document that you, all of you in our elected government, swore to protect. Demand an investigation, demand a stop to this power grab, demand that the president and his administration and anyone else found to have done so be held accountable for breaking the law. It simply must be done.

[newyawker99]

82. Hi nosferaustin!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Coexist]

62. I emailed them - should I fax them too?

[PhilipShore]

63. I agree...

I am not a lawyer, but it seems like the Congressional hearings are useless because it’s not an independent review.

If you write the senators, ask them for an Independent bi-partisan congressional hearings, in which both the Dems and the Repukes have equal powers to -- frame the debate -- between the Bush administration and Congress.

[nmliberal]

64. I used your cocept to call Sen Domenici

Asking the question, "Does Senator Domeinici agree with the concept that inherent authority meant the President can ignore any and every law passed by Congress?" I, of course, got the answer, "No."

I did enjoy a conversation with his Aide over this issue. I like the concept.

[jsamuel]

70. Thanks for the feedback!

Thanks, that conversation shows that this will work! Thanks for the feedback!

[Coexist]

65. EMAIL ALL THE REPUBLICANS WITH ONE FORM:

http://capwiz.com/thedeanpeople/mailapp/

have fun!

[jsamuel]

69. Thank you!

[Catrina]

68. I couldn't agree more ~ they need to hear from real Americans

instead of freepers, and stop living in the radical rightwing bubble they've been in. They have no idea of the anger and unrest there is out there.

Last week some of them DID hear from Real Americans, not just the Anti-Constitution, rightwing and as a result, a few of them changed their minds on the Medicaid Bill ~ not enough to win, but nearly enough.

Thanks for the list, I'll pass it on ~

Cornyn, that guy is up to his neck in Abramoff connections. Maybe we might remind him we know all about that and it's time for him to make amends and stand up for his country for a change ~

[femrap]

72. Just called DeWine...

I even got transferred to the staff member who handles Judiary concerns....Ben Franklin (not kidding). I told him that friends and colleagues of mine are so concerned about our democracy that we are considering moving out of the country....and that if someone had told us that five years ago, we would have laughed in their faces.

Our country is being ruined....we are turning into an Soviet-type authoritarian government while the cowardly Dems boo-hoo to the NY Times today about how they should how been more forceful. How fucking embarrassing is that? I wish Howard Dean would quit the Party and SCREAM on his own. He was a leader once.

I am more and more enraged each day.

[jsamuel]

75. Thanks!

[Atman]

81. Sam "The Sham" Alito and John "Pretty Boy" Roberts to the rescue!

Everything is going according to plan.