This Day, Like the Future, Belongs to Patriots

posted by John Nichols on 07/04/2008 @ 08:14am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (45)

Subscribe Now

As the 50th anniversary of America's revolution against colonialism and the divine right of kings approached, the author of the rebellion's founding document -- still alive at age 83 --was asked to attend a July 4, 1826, celebration in Washington.

Alas, Thomas Jefferson could not make the journey from his beloved Monticello. The infirmity that had narrowed the great traveler's range would claim him (and his old rival John Adams), with an irony the the essential founder would have appreciated, on the anniversary itself.

But the invitation from Washington gave Jefferson an opportunity to speak one last time to the nation he and his contemporaries had forged into being.

And his counsel, as always, was not just to maintain the spirit of the '76 but to raise the banner of liberty higher so that all the world could rally to its promise.

May (July 4) be to the world, what I believe it will be, to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all: the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self government.

That form (of government) which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion.

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.

The general spread of the light of science has already laid open, to every view, the palpable truth (that) the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the Grace of God.

These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them.

Remarkably, George Bush will visit Monticello on this, the 232nd celebration of the nation's revolt against a king named George.

Were Jefferson around, he would not be greeting Bush. The man who counseled that Americans would have to be ever on their guard against those who might turn the presidency into the tool of their "elected despotism" would surely be protesting not just the visit but the very notion of Bush's crudely constructed and violently executed presidency.

But, true to his nature, Jefferson would see those "grounds for hope" that he referred to in his last message.

Surely, he would have delighted in the advertisement in Thursday's New York Times that announced "A Declaration for Our Times" -- a variation on the Declaration of Independence that, in the spirit of the original document, rejects sacrifices of basic liberties in the name of security.

The declaration is signed by 500 individual Americans and organizations -- including this writer -- the who pledge support for fully restoring Constitutional rights and human rights in a United States steered dangerously off course during the Bush interregnum.

The Declaration is part of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee's "People's Campaign for the Constitution," which has been launched to organize grassroots coalitions in communities across the country to demand that 2008 election candidates get serious about renewing rights that have been seriously undermined and threatened during the Bush-Cheney interregnum.

"Many Americans feel dispirited by the continuing array of freedom-robbing laws, policies, and government actions, including warrantless domestic spying, torture and unlimited detentions, which they see as un-American," says BORDC director Nancy Talanian. "In this Declaration, we are calling out the administration for usurping our constitutional rights and committing ourselves to resolving our grievances through all lawful means available, as the founding fathers did."

Talanian and the BORDC have been tireless champions of the Constitution in general and the Bill of Rights in particular during a period when the president and vice president have aggressively assaulted our liberties and when, for the most part, Congress has let them get away with it.

After the Patriot Act was passed in 2001 – with support from all but one senator, Wisconsin's Russ Feingold -- it was the BORDC that launched a nationwide campaign asking city, county and state governments to go on record for upholding the Constitutional rights of their citizens. Eight states and more than 400 communities acted, and members of Congress repeatedly cited the outpouring of support for the Bill of Rights when they addressed concerns about the Patriot Act.

But, Talanian admits, there is a big difference between getting the notice of responsible members of Congress and getting the United States to recommit itself to the cause of liberty that inspired our revolution against another King George.

Just as they did in the fall of 2001, the White House and its congressional allies are on this 222nd anniversary of America's declaration of independence from kingly oppressions preparing a new assault on liberty. Instead to asserting aggressively and without apology that the 4th amendment to the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy, the Senate is by all accounts preparing to join the House in giving "legitimacy" to George Bush's spying on Americans and immunity to the telecommunications corporations that assist his warrantless wiretapping schemes.

"It is an immeasurable tragedy that on July 4th, 2008, the United States Congress appears poised to pass a bill that would betray the spirit of July 4th, 1776, by radically expanding the president's spying powers and granting immunity to the companies that colluded in his illegal surveillance program," declares the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which signed the Declaration.

The privacy fight is just one of the many struggles that will only be resolved by electing a Congress that is committed to Constitutional renewal. And such a Congress will only be elected if the people demand a new direction.

"The people need to organize themselves locally and to meet with legislators and candidates face to face," says Talanian. "After all, the US government was created to serve the people. Therefore, we need to set the government's agenda and communicate to our representatives clearly that we are unwilling to accept suspensions of our liberties and of anyone's human rights in exchange for our government's promises of greater security."

Those words may offend the sensibilities of despots, but they are poetry to patriots.

And this day, like the future Jefferson envisioned, belongs to the patriots.

Comments (45)

Happy-We would be celebrating the fourth even if we had not attacked Iraq.The last people to fight to keep us free are WW 2 veterans.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/04/2008 @ 11:07am
Rese on Speed! Why this site is allowing you to post your long rambling sections on Jesuits and whatever (nobody reads stuff like this) is beyond me!

The webmaster at this site should ban you and not allow any more of your stupid spewing...

Someone's not doing their job here!

Posted by wagonjak at 07/04/2008 @ 11:26am
Repubs = adherence to law and our US Constitution - or - capitulation to new con dic'tatorship philosophy with its constitutional perversities?

And then ever more so:

Repubs = hard work and fair pay morals - or - hardly working with partisan no-bid vote pay-off chicanery?

Repubs = strong economic far sighted positions - or - wide stance out for a buck short term cruising?

Repubs = successful and seriously can-do grown-up get the job done attitude - or - sneakily floundering stunted maturity and procrastinating authoritarian belligerent failed double-speak?

Ah, if only...:

http://tinyurl.com/64nras

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/04/2008 @ 11:59am
er, ...constitutional perversion? (or) ...unconstitutional perversities?

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/04/2008 @ 12:08pm
seemingly not considering that THEIR GUYS wouldn't always be in charge????

Posted by Maskbeta at 07/04/2008 @ 08:56am

ah, but they will.

MCBAMA '08 -- Security Through Hope

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/04/2008 @ 1:00pm
The last people to fight to keep us free are WW 2 veterans.

Posted by i'm nobody

dunno,

grenada had their ICBMs armed and ready.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/04/2008 @ 1:03pm
Posted by Maskbeta at 07/04/2008 @ 08:56am

MASK, all of the bloviations of Nichols and yourself about supposed infringements of American liberties are just that. Firstly, you have no evidence whatsoever that any Americans rights have been infringed. The only people that are being pinched are foreign nationals which we have pretty good reason to believe have terrorist ties. And George Bush has done a great job of protecting this country from terrorist attacks after 9/11, in spite of the hatred of you and your ilk.

But you do raise an important point. Americans do, indeed, have much to fear if the leftists gain control of this government, because time and again these leftists have shown that they are all too willing to trample the Constitution when it comes to instituting what they see as the 'greater good'. From the routine attacks by the left on the 2nd Amendment, to their already announced desire to trample on the 1st (see Nancy Pelosi's desire to regulate speech on the airwaves and on the internet through the Orwellian 'Fairness Doctrine'), the left's principles are at odds with liberty across the board. The left's wolf in sheep's clothing act may fool you, but the rest of us just will not drink the kool-aid, my friend.

Posted by pontificus at 07/04/2008 @ 1:25pm
OK, so what is the antithesis of a patriot? Is not the hsuB/cHeney admin the very opposite of what is expected of a patriot? hsuB/cHeney admin with the help of a 12 year repub majority in congress, have: 1. made our exec into a petty dic'tatorship- exactly what our forefathers fought against, 2. perverted our DoJ into a gestapo- exactly what we fought against in WWII, 3. allowed New Orleans to suffer and continue suffering- a modern day Tuskegee experiment ala a reptilian anti-WPA, 4. allowed 9/11 to happen- PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses, think Benedict Arnold, and thus: 5. lied us into an Iraqi war, 5. allowed OBL to go free, 6. unfunded the regulation of NAFTA environmental and best business practice/employment equity compliance, 7. treating our soldiers like fodder for corporate profit- taking an anti-Eisenhower's MIC route, 8. perverse attraction for torture- (beyond the cowardly molestation of little animals and in a drunken state, shooting friends in the face), it's counter to the father of our country- George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775, and 9. illegally spied on US citizens- totally counter to- "reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen", but most importantly 10. the hsuB/cHeney admin are big business guilt ridden dishonest self-congratulatory petty failures, failed in the very thing that birth patriots- courage in honest selfless sacrifice to and for our nation of 'we the people'.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/04/2008 @ 2:43pm
Rese on Speed! Why this site is allowing you to post your long rambling sections on Jesuits and whatever (nobody reads stuff like this) is beyond me!

The webmaster at this site should ban you and not allow any more of your stupid spewing...

Someone's not doing their job here!

Posted by wagonjak at 07/04/2008 @ 11:26am | ignore this person | warn this person

I strongly disagree with you. I will only continue to lend working class support to this site as long as people like Rese and John Nichols, who I am now thoroughly convinced has never even looked at the pictures in any of the various books on the Founding Fathers, can continue to have their views aired here.

The site should be about freedom no matter how absurd some people's opinions are.

Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 07/04/2008 @ 2:59pm
Ponti-You have no idea if Bush has kept us safe from any terrorist attacks.The right,too,has shown that you are willing to trample on the constitution and drink the kool aid so I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there.The second amendment was not written clearly so it is impossible to claim that anyone was trampling on it and you must realize that it isn't the 18th century, anymore.You drank the kool aid with Iraq and you are willing to have rights trampled on because of fear and there have been Americans who have their rights stomped on.They have not just messed with suspected terrorists which the FBI has admitted to.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/04/2008 @ 4:49pm
Ahh how quickly we forget Ponti. Jose Padilla is an American citizen, despite Georgie's attempts to get him declared otherwise, and he sat in a brig in South Carolina for over two years before even being arraigned. You don't get to pick and choose which citizens' rights are protected, and Padilla's rights were violated no question. If it happens to one of us what keeps it from happening to others? This happened under the shrub's watch, that makes him responsible.

Posted by yutsano at 07/04/2008 @ 6:10pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/04/2008 @ 4:49pm

IM, you have indeed drunk the kool-aid when it comes to swallowing the rationale for the left's attacks on the 2nd Amendment. In the first place, you seem to imply that because it's not the 18th century anymore, the 2nd amendment is no longer needed. At the same time, and contradictorily, you imply the standard kool-aid of the left that the 2nd Amendment is not clear, when in fact if it is not read to guarantee the individula right to keep and bear arms (which the Supreme Court recently ruled that it does), then it makes no sense at all. Why would the framers want to guarantee the right of the militia (i.e., the National Guard) to keep and bear arms? Your position is absurd, and bespeaks the kool-aid you have drunk.

Second, I notice you didn't touch the part about Pelosi, since I guess you know that's indefensible.

Third, you're just absolutely certain that some unknown and unnamed Americans have had their rights trampled on by the Patriot Act, it's just that you don't know of any of them. Excellent. Please feel free to continue with that mush of rationalizations and paranoia that you consider to be a political philosophy.

Posted by pontificus at 07/04/2008 @ 6:17pm
Posted by yutsano at 07/04/2008 @ 6:10pm

So, let's see. You can name one person, who was caught in the act of attempting biological terrorism, as proof that the Patriot Act, passed by 99 out of 100 Senators and ratified by the President, is unconstitutional? Try again.

Posted by pontificus at 07/04/2008 @ 6:20pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/04/2008 @ 8:03pm

So are you saying that no one putting Irena Sendlerowa up for a Nobel for about 70 years--- is Al's fault?

Another 'how stupid does the GOP dic'tator philosophy lovers think people really are' moment brought to you by JoMa...

Not quite as bad as the 'horse saddle on dinosaur bones' in a museum to prove the earth is only 5K yrs old, but then again some new con repubs think people are as dumb as new con repub followers-- since they're still following the orders of the worst US admin in modern history and willing to vote for McCave to continue it.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/04/2008 @ 9:35pm
Ponti-I haven't had any kool aid and your response,as it pertains to the second amendment,was your opinion of that,but it was not written clearly nor is "arms" defined and,according to your logic,it should only mean muskets since you want to go by the amendment as it was meant to mean during the 18th century.You said that my position was absurd and showed that I drank the kool aid,but I did not state a position on the second amendment.I'm against gun control,but not because of the second amendment.As far as having rights trampled on I stated that the FBI admitted to using the new rules to do that.That was in the news for days. Don't know much about Pelosi and don't care.You aren't protectors of the constitution.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/04/2008 @ 9:37pm
It's just really really sad.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/04/2008 @ 9:38pm
And a message easily understood and appreciated would have been heard by the jihadists....instead of the ever dreaded, threatened, supoenas delivered to Osama, et al...

Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/04/2008 @ 7:56pm

er, what are you even talking about, everyone already knows that the totally corrupt hsuB/cHeney admin couldn't or wouldn't even do that! When was the petty dic'tatorship created by the hsuB/cHeney admin ever really interested in following the law or catching OBL? No monetary profit in that for their BBB (big business buds)! Double speak ironicalliness-- no!?!?!

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/04/2008 @ 10:16pm
On this 4th of July, my American heart is heavy. We have been assaulted, used, manipulated and deceived--with only a portion of the evil doers being born of another country. It is painful to see those who have placed their hands upon the bible they claim to believe in, swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and then proceed to tear at the fabric our founding fathers collaboratively wove together.

The "deciders" are deceivers, and the cost that America has paid is far beyond the dollar bill. When I say "deciders" I declare that the evil doers were multiple and mono-voiced in their sins against our soldiers, against our children, the children of Iraq, and against America.

Shame, shame, shame on those pirating profiteers; on those complacently cowardous media moguls; and those enabling mouth pieces who enjoyed their privilege as they supported deceptive deeds.

America, you need to toughen up and realize that dissent, dissent, DISSENT, is the American way. And those of you that made us ashamed to place a peace sign in our windows because somehow that was not patriotic, when we knew all the time that these oil men were lying to us, and we knew the media was manipulating us, and we were against this ill begotten war of choice, you need you realize that we were true patriots--do you hear me--TRUE PATRIOTS.

We knew because we listened, we read, we could see the fruit of the deceptive tree of the axis of evil. We tried to tell you. We lost friends. We were shunned for being unpatriotic. We cried out to the Spirits when the bombs were dropping on innocents.

You maligned us, while we were crying out for your sons and daughters to still be alive today and I am sorry that our voice was not louder and more effective. I'm sorry. There is no joy in seeing what has happened. I sincerely love each and every life lost and I'm so sorry.

But now--fool America twice, shame on me, fool America thrice--shame on you. Toughen up America, and see the tree for the fruit it has borne. Do not sell out your country. Please, this Independence Day, commit to think for yourself and love America by standing up to the manipulative media. Stand up to the shallow sound snip.

PLEASE don't let them bomb Iran and sell the soul of America. They are war profiteers and need to be stopped. Be tough, be brave, be thoughtful, and love your country by resisting the culture of corruption.

Remember, "Sweet land of liberty, to thee I sing…."

Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/04/2008 @ 11:35pm
JULY 4TH. – A COMMEMORATION OF ENLIGHTENMENT

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/07/july-4th-celebration-of-grea t-minds.html

Posted by PacificGatePost at 07/04/2008 @ 11:37pm
Rese, if you believe that the Federal Reserved is controlled by the Vatican...you have been reading fiction.

Just to bring you back to reality, here's the names of the people in charge of that bank:

1) Ben S. Bernanke: Chairman of the Board of Governors of Federal Reserve. Term ends 2020.

2) Donald L. Kohn: Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of Federal Reserve. Term ends 2016.

3) Randall S. Kroszner: Member of Board of Governors of Federal Reserve.

4) Frederic S. Mishkin: Member of Board of Governors of Federal Reserve. Term ends 2014.

5) Alan Greenspan: Advisor to Board of Governors of Federal Reserve. Recent Chairman.

There ya go...

Posted by digit at 07/05/2008 @ 04:08am
This day should belong to Patriots but, where are they?

We have a Congress that is representing ONLY corporations, who has mutilated the Constitution (and continues to do so). More people than ever are in serious financial turmoil, the banks hold people hostages by charging immoral interest fess. All with the blessing of Congress.

Bush could NOT have done what he did without the support of BOTH parties.

We no longer have a government - and that's a fact...

Happy 4th? Hardly....more like WAKE UP and let's take what's left of OUR COUNTRY BACK!

But, people are more interested in their iPhones, 52in LCD tvs, their SUVs, etc... Have a good sleep...good luck when you wake up...

Posted by digit at 07/05/2008 @ 04:14am
"So are you saying that no one putting Irena Sendlerowa up for a Nobel for about 70 years--- is Al's fault?"

Nope,

I am saying ALGORE worship ...is your fault..

Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/05/2008 @ 02:48am

Er, ok. Not that I worship the guy, just honestly believe the world would have been much much better place to live in if he'd been president instead of your petty hsuB dic'tator. You are totally delusionary if you can't agree with the premise that the hsuB/cHeney admin has been a disaster for our nation and world compared to where Al Gore was and would have taken us as president.

That Al Gore is now being recognized universally for his accomplishments compared to the ridicule and lowest job approval poll numbers in modern history that your petty hsuB dic'tator is getting-- is really bringing out an obviously overblown envy side of you that would be laughable if it were not so so sad and highly misguided.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2008 @ 11:11am
One must never forget-- when raising very young children, please do not emphasize what is it that you 'do not' want them to do, but rather-- 'do' tell them what it is you would prefer that they do. Very young children tend to fixate on the concept of action and 'not' on the concept of choice.

Benjamin Franklin 1706-90. 'Tax is a subscription to a civilised society.'

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2008 @ 11:35am
And the point being:

What's the 'difference', if one and/or 23 more gets it or not? Isn't there enough time to get it?

The point is-- ONE ALWAYS GETS IT...

They don't know it.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2008 @ 11:45am
It's very very subtle.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2008 @ 11:46am
Civilized society ends when the reptiles skin all the mink.

But then again, everyone, even the most dense, must recognize that there is after all-- global warming...

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2008 @ 12:27pm
"Columbium (symbol Cb) was the name originally given to this element by Hatchett, but the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) officially adopted "niobium" as the name for element 41 in 1950 after 100 years of controversy. This was a compromise of sorts; the IUPAC accepted tungsten instead of wolfram, in deference to North American usage; and niobium instead of columbium, in deference to European usage. Not everyone agreed, however, and while many leading chemical societies and government organizations refer to it by the official IUPAC name, many leading metallurgists, metal societies, and most leading American commercial producers still refer to the metal by the original "columbium."

So you say 'President Bush' and I say petty hsuB dic'tator, same thing, different name.

So you say 'ALGORE' is a fraud and I and many many more investigative awarding organizations around the world say Al Gore is the real deal.

Ergo,currently one must think, at the time, George Washington to the British kingly sympathizers, was seen as a terrorist...

But we all see who won that in the long run.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2008 @ 12:59pm
Hey JoMa you'll like this:

http://tinyurl.com/5mggta

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2008 @ 3:07pm
Jomamma,

Conspicuous consumption, complacent consumption, coercive consumption, and corruptive consumption is the axis of evil. Not Al Gore and his mantra of conservative consumption.

Ironic.

Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/05/2008 @ 10:54pm
"Were Jefferson around, he would not be greeting Bush. The man who counseled that Americans would have to be ever on their guard against those who might turn the presidency into the tool of their "elected despotism" would surely be protesting not just the visit but the very notion of Bush's crudely constructed and violently executed presidency."

Can there still be any doubt that Nichols lacks any understanding of American History, the Constitution or the success of our political system over the past two hundred and twenty years. Like most on the far left, he constructs this imaginary sense of our Founding Fathers and a revisionist history.

But it's ok, the left will be happy if they can just see their realization of the destruction of our constitutional republic and i'ts replacement with some form of "pure democracy" with a European socialist model.

I think Jefferson would find both political parties rather obnoxious. However he would find the far left as evidenced on the Nation web pages far more insidious.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/06/2008 @ 12:16am
Are you REALLLLLLLY sure you want to keep investing all that power in the Executive "to fight terror"...

when Barack Obama is that Executive???

I would think given their suspicions of both him and a Democratic Congress (or just Democrats in general)....they'd start getting a BIT nervous about all this power they've given the Presidency, seemingly not considering that THEIR GUYS wouldn't always be in charge????

Posted by Maskbeta at 07/04/2008 @ 08:56am

Same answer I've given each time you raise this question. I don't fear this authority in a Democrat's hands at all. Every president has used this authority to carry out their responsibility for national security.

Like the rest of the left, you keep trying to conflate national security surveillance with that which can be used in a criminal investigation and prosecution. As has been stated in more than one Supreme Court case, this inherent authority given to the president is legal as long is it is used for national security purposes and not for criminal prosecution.

That is the intent of the 4th amendment and has nothing to do with those committed to acts of agression against the US.

This fact will not however stop the endless lies and spin by leftists like yourself to falsely frame this as an "invasion of privacy".

Furthermore, a fact overlooked by those ignorant of law and those who wilfully ignore the facts, SCOTUS has ruled that there is no expectation of privacy for wireless communications. More and more people use cell phones as their primary and sometimes only phone number. Thus tossing this whole argument into the the appropriate trash heap of leftist nonsense.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/06/2008 @ 12:28am
Hmmmm....solutions?

1) Mandatory parent education to every individual who receives free government dollars.

2) All convicted criminals pay for rent, food, electricity, luxuries, and taxes--just like every other American Citizen!

3) Hemp is legalized for industrial and medical use, and taxed accordingly.

4) Public education is extended to pre-school, beginning with 2 to 3 year olds.

5) Public service announcements that condemn all forms of child; elder; and disabled abuse.

6) 50% increase in rehabilitation; 30% decrease in juvenile prosecution.

7) Federal dollars for public education troubled youth programs.

8) 1% of all sporting event dollars set aside for troubled youth crime prevention programs.

9) Tax benefits for higher education inner-city mentorship programs.

10) Federally financed student loan credits to all 2 year public education service commitments.

I have a dream--care about our kids and stop messing around with other countries.

Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/06/2008 @ 12:33am
Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/06/2008 @ 12:33am

Please stick with Sweden and leave our constitutional republic alone.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/06/2008 @ 12:44am
And your ideas?

Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/06/2008 @ 01:54am
By the way, what's up with claiming that people who are not as myopic as you are, are from another country? I'm home grown and discerning.

Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/06/2008 @ 01:59am
And I don't cut and paste!

Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/06/2008 @ 02:00am
By the way, what's up with claiming that people who are not as myopic as you are, are from another country? I'm home grown and discerning.

Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/06/2008 @ 01:59am

I didn't say you were from Sweden, but crudely suggesting that the type of government you want can be found there.

Our constitutional republic prohibits the massive socialist programs you desire.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/06/2008 @ 11:18am
But it is alright to pour our treasure into a war of choice?

It is not socialist to raise up a healthy and educated citizenry. And how is it socialist to insist that our treasure has strings attached--i.e. parent education.

I'm talking about breaking a cycle of violence and inept parenting, focusing on rehabilitation rather than incarceration--which both require government intervention. Americans end up paying one way or the other, either by funding resorative programs, or by being victims of crime.

And again I ask, what are some of your solutions to our social problems?

Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/06/2008 @ 2:31pm
Whoops!

Here comes the fly in the ointment, me, again!. With all the "hoopala" that leftists here on the Nation have come up with saying the Constitution has been trashed (on this and other threads), it might be time to offer a different viewpoint.

The article below points out that the whole FISA requirements and legislation may NOT BE CONSTITUTIONAL, to restrict a Presidents' CONSTITUTIONAL right to do what he/she feels is necessary to protect the country.

So it turns out that those who say President Bush has damaged the constitution with warrantless wiretaps are wrong!

Here's the link to the entire article (broken up so it will post), then some significant excerpts from the article. (the entire thing was too long and would not post)

==============

http://article.nationalreview.com/print /?q=NWFmYTZmNzYyNDhlN2ZjMD VlZGFjODdlYzRiOWZjNzY=

============================

Getting FISA Wrong . . . Again A California federal judge takes time out from dismissing suit to slap Bush's surveillance program. By Andrew C. McCarthy

A federal court in California has dismissed a civil lawsuit that alleged surveillance violations against a Muslim charity the government has formally designated as supporter of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

Nevertheless, in his ill-conceived 56-page opinion, Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, of the district court in San Francisco, gets to the right result only after concluding that Congress has the power to preempt the president's constitutional authority.

Judge Walker found that the 1978 FISA statute (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) did precisely that, and therefore that the Bush administration's Terrorist Surveillance Program, under which the National Security Agency eavesdropped on suspected terrorist communications crossing U.S. borders without seeking FISA-court authorization, was illegal. ..... Thus, this one continued with the plaintiffs contending that the state secrets privilege is a creature of judge-made common law. Federal common law can be displaced by statute.

Consequently, AHF contends the states secret privilege was preempted when Congress enacted FISA, which purports to regulate all national-security surveillance and allows lawsuits by those subjected to surveillance outside its terms.

The court was thus confronted with the question that has animated scholarly debate since the New York Times exposed the NSA program in 2005: Does FISA, a mere statute, eviscerate the commander-in-chief's authority under Article II of the Constitution to conduct surveillance he believes is necessary to protect the American people against foreign threats to national security -- particularly in wartime?

Bottom line: Chief Judge Walker concluded that FISA did preempt the state-secrets privilege -- though, bound by the Ninth Circuit's exclusion of the top-secret document, he dismissed the suit anyway. .....

The state secrets question is an interesting one all to itself. It is, however, merely a proxy for the underlying separation-of-powers clash. In effect, Walker held that Congress could and did remove the president's power to conduct surveillance, that FISA eviscerated Article II of the Constitution. His treatment of that issue was wayward, to say the least.

Judge Walker elaborately traced the history leading to FISA's enactment, including the 1976 Church Committee findings about domestic spying abuses and sober statements by various lawmakers about the perceived need to hyper-regulate electronic eavesdropping. That wrong was done, particularly in the Watergate era, cannot be gainsaid. But that does not mean the available remedies included a statutory slicing of executive power to guard against the possibility of future abuse.

It was not Congress but the Constitution that vested the president with surveillance authority. Certainly, the president could be impeached for abusing it (as Nixon would have been had he fought on). But the power is a component of the office forged by Article II, not a creation of statute.

............

The fact that our system is based on "checks and balances" -- the vapid phrase is a verbal-tick for FISA enthusiasts -- does not give one branch the authority to re-jigger the responsibilities of the other two. Moreover, the fact that the president and Congress have overlapping areas of authority does not entitle the president to exercise powers the Constitution vests in the legislature in those areas.

Yet, these improprieties are exactly what Congress tried to accomplish in FISA. Fearing future abuse of a necessary executive power, it purported to strip the president of that power. It delegated the power to the newly created FISA court, which was to decide -- based on the executive's advice -- which domestic collections of foreign intelligence were permissible. And it sought to justify the power grab by (a) blathering about "checks and balances" (though, as Watergate showed, its powers of impeachment and the purse already gave Congress all the checks and balances it needed to combat executive abuse), and (b) pointing out that the Constitution gives it authority that overlaps with the president's in the areas of domestic eavesdropping and rule-making for executive agencies -- overlapping authority which Congress construes as the power to eviscerate presidential power in those areas.

Ecclesiastes reminds us that there is nothing new under the sun. We should not be surprised that the Framers, serious students of history, warned us over 200 years ago that this would happen.

The Constitution, Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 73, is designed to defend against "the propensity of the legislative department to intrude upon the rights, and to absorb the powers, of the other departments." It does so by giving each branch powers that Congress cannot infringe, gobble or delegate.

That doesn't mean Congress won't try -- as the Framers knew, the lawmaker's appetite is insatiable. That is why statutes are often invalidated by courts and ignored by presidents. Judge Walker lamely observes that FISA hardly stands alone: Congress has enacted many statutes that regulate classified information. He might also have noted many other curbs and legislative vetoes by which Congress presumes to restrict war powers, enforcement authority, budget execution, and a host of other executive responsibilities. The fact that these laws are passed is not the point.

Their presence on the books hardly means all their provisions are proper.

The fact that presidents try to work within the confines of dubious laws rather than provoking needless constitutional crises by challenging them is to be expected.

Courts, too, indulge a presumption that Congress's enactments, now matter how facially questionable, are constitutional.

Occasionally, however, push comes to shove. A presumptively valid law may be on the books for many years only to find itself struck down when a controversy arises and its validity is finally tested.

That happens in the law when a person aggrieved by congressional excess finally complains, and then a court must decide. It happens in national security when, despite a quarter-century of compliantly working within FISA, a 9/11 happens and the chief executive finds FISA's arduous provisions materially interfering with his first duty to protect the nation from foreign attack.

IGNORING PRECEDENT It is on this score that Chief Judge Walker's opinion is weakest. He is very long on demonstrating the obvious, undeniable and unremarkable: In FISA, Congress intended to remove all residual presidential authority to conduct electronic surveillance outside statutory restrictions. The judge is woefully short, though, on the only issue that really matters: whether, regardless of their intentions, our lawmakers had the power to do that. One must always marvel at how selective the affection of FISA's admirers is. They love the statute's hamstringing of the executive. They love the FISA court. But the higher court created by the same statute? Not so much.

The Supreme Court had explained in 1948 that courts had no institutional competence in matters of intelligence collection. It suggested in 1972 -- in a case about domestic-security threats, not foreign ones as to which executive supremacy was unquestioned -- that the incompetence problem might be addressed by a special court that would become expert by repeatedly handling applications for surveillance. So when FISA was enacted in 1978, Congress took these lessons to heart and created two special courts: the FISA court to rule on executive applications for surveillance, and the FISA court of review, a superior, appellate tribunal. These were to become the repository of judicial expertise on intelligence matters and the operation of FISA.

After 24 years' experience under FISA, the three-judge FISA court of review issued a unanimous, comprehensive ruling in 2002 (rejecting the FISA court's lawless attempt to rebuild the infamous "wall" between intelligence and law enforcement that had proved so disastrous prior to 9/11). In that ruling, called In re Sealed Case, it said the following:

The [Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Truong Dinh Hung], as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information…. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power. [Emphasis added.]

That is the teaching of the most specialized tribunal created by Congress precisely to be the expert judicial authority in matters of intelligence collection. It has said, unambiguously, what black-letter law has long made manifest: a statute cannot trump the Constitution.

The president has authority to conduct surveillance against foreign national security threats without seeking judicial permission. No matter how clear FISA is, and no matter how regularly presidents respectfully work within its terms, FISA cannot take that authority away. .......

However inadvertently, Chief Judge Walker highlights his folly by pointing to what Congress pronounced when it passed the original federal wiretapping law in 1968:

Nothing in this chapter * * * shall limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the nation against actual or potential attack * * * or to protect national security against foreign intelligence activities.

Walker observes that when Congress enacted FISA ten years later, it repealed this provision. Congress, of course, can repeal any statute it has ever passed. But it cannot, under any circumstances, repeal "the constitutional power of the President" -- not even by the facile ploy of repealing a statute that mentions it. As Congress correctly understood in 1968, and as the courts consistently acknowledged, the president's surveillance authority against foreign threats to national security is a "constitutional power." The president had the power because of the Constitution. He did not have it because Congress conceded it in 1968, and he did not lose it because Congress presumed to strip it in 1978. .......

-- National Review's Andrew C. McCarthy is author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad.

Posted by sjchermak at 07/06/2008 @ 7:55pm
One does not have to refer to FISA to consider the dilution of Constitutional freedoms under the Bush administration.

Habius Corpus--the whole military tribunal thing. I mean, think about it, the same justice system that is good enough to try and charge those scumbags that molest our children, are somehow not equipped to put terrorists behind bars? It does not make sense.

The politicizing of the judicial system.

Data mining our library records.

Remember, it was Bush who said at least 3 times that a dictatorship would be a lot easier.

Oh yeah, how about more of your own analysis and less cut an paste?

Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/06/2008 @ 8:26pm
Hello PrairieDeb,

I normally do not cut and paste to the degree I did above, and I have presented plenty of my own analysis on issues in the past.

I did so here because this was an important article, undercutting a main leftist argument that President Bush is guilty of impeachable offenses because of FISA.

As you can see, the leftists are wrong. I notice you did not dwell on the point, but moved on to the next one that comes up a lot, Habeas Corpus and how to deal with the terrorists who seek to kill us.

Abraham Linclon suspended Habeas Corpus during the War Between the States, and said that the Constitution was not a death sentence.

And the terrorists are not American citizens, nor are the using the standard rules of military engagement in their efforts to kill us. Thus, there is no way that court remedies available to American citizens should be made available to these terrorists, nor do Geneva convention rules apply.

On a separate subject, you raise concern about caring for kids and make the following statement:

" It is not socialist to raise up a healthy and educated citizenry. And how is it socialist to insist that our treasure has strings attached--i.e. parent education."

Parent education? What??

It IS Socialist to talk about things like "Parent Education" Why on earth do we need "Parent Education"???

The Parents are the ones who need to be LISTENED TO, not EDUCATED!!!

It is the "Educators" who need to be "EDUCATED".... Educated to learn something they have no grasp of..... that the PARENTS are the ones who have the responsibility to make sure their kids have a decent education, and that the education the kids receive is the one that the PARENTS approve of, instead of the one the EDUCATORS ram down the kids and parents' throat, as is the case now.

I have read many time where parents are told now they have no say what goes on in school....... in a book by Laura Ingraham, Power to the People, she points out a school system in Illinois that made kids sign an agreement not to tell anybody, even their parents, what they were "taught" in a sex education class....... and there was a case in California a while back where a court ruled that parents had no say when they objected to a survey the school had given their kids about their sexual behavior.

To give kids a decent education, how about paying teachers and promoting teachers by merit, instead of by union seniority rules, as is the case now? How about abolishing tenure? How about giving administrators more ability to fire incompetent or bad teachers? (this is practically nonexistent now)

Since kids will be kids, how about returning the authority the teachers used to have back to them to discipline children when they misbehave?

How about returning some balance back to the classroom, in subjects such as American History, so that kids can learn who people like George Washington were, instead of "learning" all the wrong America is proclaimed to be guilty of over the years?

How about teaching kids basic skills such as reading, writing and arithmetic, rather than the B.S they are taught now? And when in math class, let teachers teach that 2 + 2 =4 and let them mark the exam wrong when a kids answers that 2 + 2 =5 is OK because they tried or is good because it shows creativity?

How about letting teachers go back to marking exams with a red pen, rather than in some places now teachers have to mark exams with a purple pen so as not to bruise little Johnny or Susie's self esteem?

And how about, if the schools continue to be lousy, letting parents have more flexibility in school choice by the voucher system where they can select a better school for their child?

There is a lot that can be done to help our kids and these fixes would not cost any additional money - these fixes would result in better educated kids and return power back to the parents. After all, it does NOT take a village to raise a child, it takes a PARENT.

Posted by sjchermak at 07/06/2008 @ 10:35pm
Grammar correction,

Since I went to school before lib educators made a mess of it and thus I got a decent education, I see some grammar omissions in my statement above:

"And when in math class, let teachers teach that 2 + 2 =4 and let them mark the exam wrong when a kids answers that 2 + 2 =5 is OK because they tried or is good because it shows creativity? "

This statement should read:

"And when in math class, let teachers teach that 2 + 2 =4 and let them mark the exam wrong when kids answers that 2 + 2 =5. Nowadays teachers would be more prone to say 2 + 2 = 5 is OK because the child tried and it is good because it shows creativity"

My first statement would have gotten marks with a red pen from my teachers, and I would have corrected the errors, without having my self esteem bruised. Back when I was in school I don't recall kids suffering life-long injury to their psyche by getting wrong answers marked wrong - I don't know why lib educators decided this was a problem that needed to be fixed with their lib "solutions"

Posted by sjchermak at 07/06/2008 @ 10:46pm
Thanks sjchermak. I appreciate your thoughtful response and there are many points that I agree with; like that there should be merit pay and it should be easier to get rid of awful teachers.

But This subject is something I know a bit about and what I know is that you are painting educators with a horridly broad brush. There are many in my field of work who are volunteering at least 30 hours a week in order to reach out to young people who have myriad difficulties, from English as a second language, to domestic violence, to disabling depression, to substance abusing, drug dealing wife beating family dysfunction.

Americans do not know what it takes to teach their children. They do not know how they are disadvantaged by simply having a beginning in life that is not rich with literacy. They do not know that we could not possibly get our duties done and give their young the personal attention that they need in 7.5 hours a day. We volunteer. We all do, most of us anyway.

We absolutely need parent education tied to government dollars. If a family needs welfare or disability, I believe it is a reasonable requirement to have them learn what it takes to raise a healthy young person.

Parents are over burdened these days. Usually both parents work and the kids are home with lord knows what video games and movies to influence them, teach them about their world, and give them cues on how to treat others. Hence the problem; many kids are not talked to, listened to, met eyes with, explained the nuances of citizenship. Teachers try to fill those gaps, but children having children, poverty, drug addiction, and a myriad of other social issues, prevent kids, good kids, from getting the guidance that they need. You couple that with crippled school districts that have unfunded federal hoops to jump through, and you have millions of kids without a basic moral compass. Are they getting it from TV? Talking heads? Bloggers? No.

I don't know if you have kids, but I do. And I don't know if you have spent any time volunteering in your local school district, but I have and not only that, I have spent my personal family time caring for young people that need a trusted adult in their life. Our country has let their young people down. Oh yeah, there are many privileged kids that have nicer cars and more cash on hand than I do, but that does not equate to a moral compass.

You shouldn't be dissing on teachers. We work hard serving our country, and serving your young. Obama has it right; civil service in the public school system is just as altruistic as serving our country abroad, for it is these young people to which we will be passing the baton, and if they have not been taught empathy, civil service, literacy, and a historical context to understand the value of their country, what kind of country will we have?

Parent education is essential and I believe that it is appropriate for our federal dollars to have some strings attached. BREAK THE CYCLE OF POVERTY AND VIOLENCE.

My personal views through my personal lens--most teachers are true patriots.

Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/08/2008 @ 03:26am
"The [Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Truong Dinh Hung], as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information…. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power. "

You've just discovered the Court of Review's statement? This argument has been made by Bush partisans for years and it's wrong for the following reasons. Truong was based on pre-FISA fact patterns and therefore didn't rule on FISA constitutionality. The CoR didn't acknowledge that and therefore didn't explain how it applied to FISA.

"The president has authority to conduct surveillance against foreign national security threats without seeking judicial permission. No matter how clear FISA is, and no matter how regularly presidents respectfully work within its terms, FISA cannot take that authority away. ......."

Nowhere is it written that Congress can't regulate such matters where part of the surveillance involves a domestic party.

"Abraham Linclon suspended Habeas Corpus during the War Between the States, and said that the Constitution was not a death sentence."

Except that such suspension is permissible in cases of rebellion or invasion; neither apply here. Incidentally, SCOTUS later held Lincoln's suspension invalid because the power is given to Congress.

"And the terrorists are not American citizens, nor are the using the standard rules of military engagement in their efforts to kill us. Thus, there is no way that court remedies available to American citizens should be made available to these terrorists, nor do Geneva convention rules apply."

Sorry, there are certain minimum protections that the Third Geneva Convention applies to everyone.

Posted by brunowe at 07/08/2008 @ 09:15am
sjchermak,

I concur with brunowe--I read your email (sjcermak's) too late at night to go there. But my perspective is that America should treat all human beings with the dignity and moral standards with which we would want others to treat our beloved soldiers.

There is no justification for sadistic brutality, EVER!

Our justice system is absolutely equipped to take care of any, ANY criminal activity perpetrated against our citizens.

The precedent that Bush put in motion puts our soldiers at risk, and reduces the basic standards of human and humane rights that every individual should have, including SUSPECTED terrorists. Remember, in Gitmo many of these prisoners have not even had charges leveled against them, when they have been incarcerated for over 7 years.

Just like this administration's consistent mode of operation, it is immoral, corrupt, and another money siphon for KBR to continue pillaging our national treasure. It is all smoke and mirrors, intended to circumvent our nation of laws, while profiteering not only from a war of choice, but enabled by American fears. They're traitors in my book.

Posted by PrairieDeb at 07/08/2008 @ 2:50pm