Domestic Surveilance Part 2 (Page 2)

I've considered your considered opinion.  And I concur.

OK...so maybe all the phone surveillance is a bad idea (I guess).  What do we do to insure that the world never has to see pics of people falling from terrorist bombed buildings again?  How soon we forget....

 ...I was going to post one; but thought better of it... 

 It sounds like an attempt was made to inform congress of the nature of this surveillance: 

Article quote "....Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos emphasized Thursday that the administration briefed members of Congress on the NSA's collection of phone records. "

It also sounds like there is some court precedence that has allowed this type of thing in the past...the article notes a 1979 ruling.....

The thing is that while Congress has certainly screwed stuff up, but exactly how many times has W. vetoed any of the bills they've passed? That's right. Never.

He's a rubber-stamp President and while that's great if you're a majority-party congressman, it sucks for the rest of us who kind of like our checks-and-balances.

My point is that by never, ever excersising his veto power, he's in effect Congress's whipping boy. He doesn't need to impose his will on them. He's saying to them do whatever the f*ck you want, I won't stand in your way. In a way, it's like abdication of power.

I'm not going to comment on the surveillance itself, but wether it's justifiable or warranted or not here's why I believe the furor over it is a good thing:

It show this and future administrations that there are lots of Americans who are very jealous of their privacy and personal security. It serves as a reminder that the American people will not accept a pat on the head and a "we know what's best for you, now run along" attitude from our leaders and that we harbor a basic, healthy skepticism towards those who hold power in our name.

Without the willingness to say to the government "Now hold on a second, run that by me again", the ability to say it disappears. Complacency corrodes liberty.

 I don't think anyone wants our freedoms or liberties restricted.  My point is that preventing 9/11 type terrorist attacks is not easy.  Surveillance (legal) will probably have to play a part.  And as I noted above, there is legal precedence for this type of activity as mentioned in the article.

It's funny. I hear lots about congress and their screw ups. How, for instance, for a republican congress, they've passed more pork than any previous democratic congress.

But ultimately, the POTUS *is* responsible---he's the boss. ANd that's why you hear most of the anger directed toward him (IMO).

Here's how it works:

• Congress has the authority to pass any law it sees fit.
• The POTUS has the power to veto any law passed by Congress.
• The courts have the power to nullify any law based on constitutionality.

SO: the POTUS has ultimate responsibility for any action taken; no action at the Federal level can be taken without his authority. Granted, he can't take any action unless Congress puts it before him (excersizing "Presidential authority" notwhithstanding).

When you have a Republican congress, a republican President and a majority of the SCOTUS appointed by republicans, yes, the checks and balances does kind of go out the window.

Maybe there should be a law...