Today in the New York Times, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) has renewed his call for Congress to take action agaist the unconstitutional assertions of power by President George W. Bush and his enablers. Sen. Feingold has written a
letter to the Times editor that reads in part as follows, below the jump:
John Yoo, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Bush administration, acknowledges that President Bush's unique approach to the law, which the president has insisted is necessary to fight terrorism, is motivated by the "broader'' goal of strengthening executive power (Op-Ed, Sept. 17).
…
The agenda includes the reclassification of government information and the withholding of information from Congress and the courts, and has been buttressed by the president's "signing statements,'' which Mr. Yoo asserts claim the president's right not to enforce "unconstitutional'' laws.
…
[A]ccording to Mr. Yoo, the president can ignore both laws and judicial decisions that he deems "wrongheaded'' or "obsolete.''
These views are clearly offensive to our constitutional system. It is long past time for Congress to reassert its proper role in checking an executive branch that has so little respect for the principles that have sustained our democracy for more than 200 years. [My emphasis—pd]
Most of us recall that Sen. Feingold sponsored a resolution of censure against Bush back in March due to just part of the actions by Bush that he cites in the present letter. Clearly, he would be at least as eager now to spur Congress to action as soon as possible. An immediate step that they might take would be to refuse to pass any bill that removes jurisdiction from the courts to interpret the law, including what the law says is torture, and hands that power to the President, or that denies the courts the power to judge matters such as habeas corpus petitions. As a practical matter, that would mean a filibuster of the bill that the Grand Old Pretenders have agreed to deliver for reached agreement with the White House on. I'm sure there will be those who feel that such a move is too big a distraction going into the home stretch of the campaign season, however (even bearing in mind that only one-third of the Senate is currently running).
So I put the question: Would people support a move in the Senate to filibuster the Graham-McCain-Warner bill as it still stands, or would such a move take away from the upcoming electoral effort? Maybe our poll and discussion can be a follow-on to what Sen. Feingold has written.