Domestic Surveilance Part 2 (Page 3)

Thanks.....I had forgotten everything I had learned about our political system.

Does the same hold true for a Democrat President, Democrat Congress, and Democrat SCOTUS? I just want to see where this stands.

Jim: Doesn't congress have the power to override a presidential veto?

I think that surveillance is a necessary and important part of preventing another attack, but that surveillance has to have some oversight, someone to say "we'll let you listen in or read this persons email, just tell us why" instead of the government listening in on whoever it thinks it needs to as it is doing now. It is a short step to abuses without someone looking over their shoulder.

I'm not sure how this is going to sound outside my head, but I think instead of trying to prevent every single terrorist act we are going to have to accept and learn to live with the risk of an attack as a byproduct of our freedom. Not that we shouldn't try to prevent attacks, but unless we want to live in a police state, the same freedoms that we are trying to export to the rest of the world are the ones that will allow someone to execute an attack. I think to some extent its an inverse relationship between freedoms and security - finding the right balance is the hard part, but debates like this are the only way we will find it.

Actually Jim, Bush has been vetoing lots of laws he doesn't want to follow. About 750 of them. It's his line item veto called a signing statement.

Weren't line item vetos ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the Clinton v New York case?

It's not an actual line-item veto, but he uses the signing statements as such. The most widely know example is the anti-torture law by McCain. Buch didn't want to sign it, but under pressure he did. But he stuck on a signing statement basically saying "well the way I interpret the constitution torture is ok, so even though I'm signing this law, I don't have to enforce it".

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bu...

Heh, I thought the same thing when I saw your name. Great minds....

Here's another example of a signing statement that goes to my concerns about oversight. from the Boston Globe article:

In December 2004, Congress passed an intelligence bill requiring the Justice Department to tell them how often, and in what situations, the FBI was using special national security wiretaps on US soil. The law also required the Justice Department to give oversight committees copies of administration memos outlining any new interpretations of domestic-spying laws. And it contained 11 other requirements for reports about such issues as civil liberties, security clearances, border security, and counternarcotics efforts.

After signing the bill, Bush issued a signing statement saying he could withhold all the information sought by Congress.

Likewise, when Congress passed the law creating the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, it said oversight committees must be given information about vulnerabilities at chemical plants and the screening of checked bags at airports.

It also said Congress must be shown unaltered reports about problems with visa services prepared by a new immigration ombudsman. Bush asserted the right to withhold the information and alter the reports.

Yes, it is. And yes, both the House and the Senate have to vote to overturn a full veto.
Additionally, regardless of who is in control, a Senator has the power to hijack ANY bill in the Senate by using a filibuster. Basically, the Senator(s) just fill time until they get their way.

I pointed this out because I don't necessarily agree with your point that everything stops with the executive since he has veto power. There is a mechanism under which the Congress can override a presidential veto. Wether they exercise that option or not, or whether it is a difficult option isn't so much of an issue. The fact remains that there is an option. From 1968- 1998 there were 30 congressional overrides of presidential vetos. Ford was overridden 12 times of 28 vetos; Reagan was overridden 9 times of his 18 vetos, and Clinton and Bush Sr. were each overridden once.

Truth is there's enough blame to go around. Oddly I have confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Meaning that the Republicans were going to detonate a nuclear device somewhere in D.C.l? Personally, I'd go for that.

Or are you referring to something else?

Jim I think the 'nucular option' is only really meant to apply to filibusters of judicial nominations not legislation.

The reason there are no over-rides is because Bush hasn't vetoed anything yet. He uses signing statements for that which can't be overridden.

I think that most people tend to have more confidence in the Supreme Court because they are the most detached from politics and because we hear the least about what they do and the controversies that they cause. Also, they are allegedly the brightest legal minds in the nation, although if they are the brightest legal minds in the nation, we sure don't have many bright legal minds. We have had our fair share of incompetence on the court.

And......? Every President has done this. Clinton used quite alot, and often times in a similar fashion as Bush does now.

If Congress does not approve of how the President handles the law, then said issue can be brought before the Supreme Court for review and ruling. The Court can give a judicial review if necessary, or I'm sure someone in Congress can get people to begin some legal review.

Signing statements:
Reagan (8yrs): 71
Clinton (8yrs): 105
Bush (5 yrs): 750+

Court reviews are next to impossible since most of the statements deal with national security.

Check this out for the implications:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html