I was pleased to find that both of my Texas senators responded to my most recent
letter. I asked them both to support Senator Feingold's censure. Long shot, I know, but they're the only senators I've got.
Their response was disappointing. Not only are they disconnected from reality, they evidently aren't familiar with the Constitution and the statutes, codes, and laws that make up our system of government. You'd think that our duly elected Congress Critters would know that stuff backwards and forwards. It makes me wonder what they're smoking up there in Washington, DC.
Kay Bailey Hutchison
Kay Bailey Hutchison believes that Congress will keep Bush from doing anything wrong.
KBH: Article II, sections three and four of the U.S. constitution requires Congress to exercise constant and vigilant oversight of the executive branch of our government, and I take this responsibility seriously.
Article II, Section 3 talks about some of the duties and powers of the presidency. The short and sweet of it is that Bush is to give Congress information of the State of the Union, convene both Houses in `extraordinary occasions' and take care that the laws are faithfully executed. In Section 4, all civil officers of the United States including the President and Vice President can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.
KBH: I support the President in his efforts to strengthen domestic and international security, and I believe Congress has the constitutional checks and balances appropriate to ensure the executive branch upholds its duties.
Through his role as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, Bush can strengthen domestic and international security. But nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Bush has the authority to ignore the system of checks and balances! He failed to work within the system to get the results he needed, instead directly ordering the NSA to wiretap civilians.
Even more damning is the revelation that Bush has been signing bills into law, but attaching signing statements that say he won't obey the law he just signed. He's evading accountability by not vetoing the bill, then he undermines the effectiveness of the bill with his signing statement. And he's done this 750 times.
Bush isn't the first to attach a signing statement to a bill. Reagan, George Bush Sr., and Bill Clinton have all done it. (Bush Sr. signed 232 statements, and Bill Clinton 140.) But he's the first president to forge a new path as an interpreter of a law's intent, instead of letting Congress do its job, and the first to define a bill as being constitutional, instead of leaving that job to the courts.
Edwin Meese engineered this in the Reagan years to expand presidential powers and create the unitary presidency. Who helped him craft this policy? Why, Samuel Alito Jr., now on the job as Bush's Attorney General. Surprise.
Senator Hutchison has a point in that Congress, along with the executive and judiciary branch, are supposed to work together in a system of checks and balances. But the system breaks down if the majority controls the House, the Senate, and the executive branch. Our checks and balances are so much hot air if Congress refuses to do their job properly and exercise that `constant and vigilant oversight.' Whether or not we agree on Bush's actions helping national security, I think we can safely say that our system of checks and balances isn't working.
John Cornyn
John Cornyn feels that Bush has the authority to do whatever he wishes; one of the many Republicans from the Reagan era who believe in a unitary dictatorship... er, I mean executive.
JC: In fact, both the Constitution and the Authorization for the Use of Military Force--which was overwhelmingly passed by Congress and signed into law on September 18, 2001--grant the President broad authorities to protect and defend the nation.
Cornyn cites the Authorization for the Use of Military Force and the Constitution as justification. Of course, the Constitution says nothing about wiretaps. The closest our Founding Fathers got to a phone was a couple of cans and some string.
Article II, Section 2 says that the "President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
Okay, no help there. What about the AUMF? "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations..."
Force isn't surveillance, no matter how gray Samuel Alito might want to paint this issue.
Even the FISA statute states "Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath."
JC: Based on our current knowledge of the NSA program, the President was acting within his legal authorities and obligations as Commander-in-Chief.
Sorry, John Cornyn. This is just plain false. If the President was acting legally, he would have at least ordered the Attorney General to authorize electronic surveillance with a written statement under oath. He did nothing of the sort.. He went around the necessary system of checks and balances, and ordered the NSA to wiretap civilians.
To my great relief, Cornyn does support oversight hearings "that will provide a better understanding of this important program and determine whether any legislative action is required." He also supports prosecuting those who have leaked classified information.
However, I remain concerned that the unauthorized release of classified information, such as occurred in The New York Times story, could damage national security. Individuals who divulge classified information without proper authorization--especially when such information can undermine ongoing intelligence operations--should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Isn't that funny? He supports the prosecution of individuals who have threatened national security by divulging classified information. Would that apply to the people who leaked Valerie Plame's identity? I'm tempted to write and ask.
Cornyn and Hutchison have failed to see th consequences of an unfettered presidency. Like Oakland Raiders fans, they don't care how their team wins, as long as it wins. We can't depend on them to protect our government's delicate balance. Now more than ever, it's essential that we VOTE! We need to get back to the basics of our government - our Constitution and the existing body of laws that make our country run, however badly.