Barbarism

Deciding to have an abortion is a decision that should rest with the woman (or little girl in this case) with her doctor and whoever else she trusts to help her decide and certainly NOT with the likes of Samuel Alito or Clarence Thomas or Neil Gorsuch or Bret Kavanaugh or Amy Barrett or John Roberts. Shame on all who would take that right away from my daughters and granddaughters. To force birth on a ten-year-old victim of rape is barbaric.

Click on the picture to read Jennifer Rubin's column regarding this.

Gleaning Facebook: John Lewis

We lost a great American tonight. Rest in peace John Lewis.

From President Obama when he presented John Lewis the Medal of Freedom:

“And generations from now, when parents teach their children what is meant by courage, the story of John Lewis will come to mind – an American who knew that change could not wait for some other person or some other time; whose life is a lesson in the fierce urgency of now.”

Gleaning Facebook: Unreasoned Hatred

How sad that there are in the world people who still think like this legislator. I took this from Bil Lepp's Facebook:

 

This man makes laws in WV.

Look at minute 6.09 and on. He says if he found out his kids were gay he would "see if [they] could swim." I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but dude... if I said anything that even could be construed as suggesting I would do harm to my children for any reason -especially on TV- I would not want to face Paula Gordon Lepp

At 4.38ish he says #LGBTQ is ..."the most evil spreading and hate filled group in this country."

Seriously? NAZIs? White Supremacists?

The #WVGOP #SpeakerHanshaw #GovJustice and need to do something about this.

#ProDiversity #IMProLGBTQ

Also- people are attacking him for his appearance. Let's be above that.

Bad Words

I grew up a white boy in Georgia. I was lucky that I had thoughtful parents who, though not perfect*, could at  least recognize blatant hate. My Daddy, as a young kid, had witnessed a black boy being treated very cruelly. He and Mother taught us early on to treat every one with respect, as they understood it at that time and place. Had I or any of my six siblings, uttered the word "nigger" -- except while reading Huckleberry Finn aloud  -- we'd have likely gotten a switching from Mama or a belt spanking from Daddy. 

You may have noticed that I choose not to use the silly "N-word" euphemism except in explaining why I don't: It is not the arrangement of letters or the combination of vocal vibrations that is offensive, it is the use of them to denigrate other folks. This 66 year-old Georgia white guy does not and has never done that. 

Here's a shocker for you, though. Some of my most admired, most dearly loved human beings -- oh, what a sorry lot are human beings! -- have been racist to some degree, sometimes a high one. And part of my love for some of them is the degree to which they have grown out of that state. As the son of two Methodist preachers I, in fits and starts, strive for perfection, but few of us make it all the way, likely.

A while back we were the victims of a home invasion in the middle of the night. I did not see the poor slob in the dark, but in chasing him from my house and across our lawn I raged at him uncontrollably. I used language that I do. not. use. I consider it a sign of ignorance, poor upbringing, low intelligence, and a paltry vocabulary to sprinkle common expletive into every day talk. I don't cuss. But on this occasion, in fury, I belched a torrent of "favorite curse words" that would have used up James Lipton's complete list. I hope, had I known the guy was black (I 'don't) that I would have stopped short of using his race as a stone, but in the moment, I was slinging anything I could reach -- he had invaded my home, where my wife and child were sleeping. If I had let fly that horrid word, would it have negated any good I have done in my life? Should I have lost my job?

I am Paula Deen's age. Our society was so divided in the fifties and sixties that I was barely acquainted with any black people. Still I was an outspoken proponent of civil rights for all. As a result, at my high-school, I was ridiculed a few times in the 1960s as a "nigger-lover" -- I wore the title with some pride, actually. I was called that by folks who, today, may have forgotten, but who would be very embarrassed, and some of whom would be very saddened, to be reminded of their past hatred of those who looked so much like present day close friends, co-workers, and, in some cases, spouses, children, or grandchildren that they love with all their hearts.

All of that to say: I don't know Paula. I have paid more attention to her this week than all the rest of my weeks combined. She may have a heart as black as the word she admits uttering decades ago. To whatever degree she practices racial discrimination in her personal and business relationships today I hope she will be held to account and that those wronged can receive justice. But, at least in regard to uttering that word, she faced up to her past. That's a start that many have not made. 

I believe, in Paula Deen's case, the condemnation has gone too far. The overreaction is now serving to divide us further.

And if Paula has a great BBQ sauce recipe, I'll take it. The Fourth is upon us.

* You were/are real close to perfection, Mama!

On being called "Politically Correct"

Those who rant against the building of the Islamic equivalent of a YMCA in lower Manhattan have enjoyed accusing those of us on the other side of "political correctness". In fact, of course, if one side can be fairly accused of being motivated by "political correctness" it would be the ranters. They have repeatedly used sensibility to the feelings of some (not all by a long shot) 2001 terror survivors as their main argument in discouraging free expression among actual residents of lower Manhattan -- who were also terrorized in 2001.

My objection to the use of the term "politically correct" is that, rather than dealing with the core issue of whether or not Muslims in lower Manhattan have every right to speak and worship and assemble as they please*, opponents attack civil libertarians' motives by accusing us of only worrying about ruffling the sensibilities of the Muslims. Hogwash! That is an ad hominem response , in my book. I have Muslim friends. I love and admire them. But I think the beliefs of their religion, as I understand them, are wrong and definitely not the loving faith of the New Testament as I read it. That's why I choose to be a Methodist instead -- though I disagree with some other self-styled Christians about as vehemently. I have no problem telling anyone that.

I believe those who are ranting about the erroneously-labeled "Ground Zero Mosque", have every right* to do so, but are tragically mistaken in doing so. In practical terms their actions are totally counter-productive. I believe their actions are also analogous to calling for Japanese-American internment in WWII, calling for segregation of African-Americans, calling for posting of "No Irish Need Apply" signs, calling for Native-American removal, etc. I believe, eventually, they or their progeny will be embarrassed by their actions and statements. Newt Gingrich, for example, has permanently soiled his own biography with his extremism on this issue.

I hope I would, if it came to it, be willing to die for the ranters' and the Muslims' right as Americans to be royally wrong and believe, preach, worship, assemble*, to their heart's content for their wrongheaded beliefs.


* under the law, of course -- please don't anyone give me another lecture on extraneous issues like zoning.

Editing Note: spelling corrected in title, 8/25/08.

Marriage Equality

I have been very conflicted about where to stand on the issue of homosexual marriage.

Several of those near and dear to me, people otherwise very open and loving toward others, are horribly offended by the very idea. I've never understood that.

I have long been sure that everyone should have the legal right to the associations that they wish so long as they harm no one. But I have not been sure about whether we should call those special unions "marriage". I also have had several students who had "two mothers". At least in society as it exists today those kids have generally had lots of problems. Of course children of divorce inevitably also have major problems -- some claim not, after 30 years of teaching ten-year-olds I don't believe them -- and we don't have any problem approving the 50% of marriages that end in divorce.

Actually, I think I prefer that the government get out of the business of taking sides in this controversy at all. Instead the government should license the civil unions that people choose and let individuals and religious groups call the unions what they wish.

I count among my dear friends several "gay" men. I think of one right now who is an inspiring teacher, an active layman in his church, and a dedicated spouse of another man for a dozen years or so. I can see no benefit to society in preventing him from making his loving, committed, stable union legal. Why not issue these fine, contributing citizens their civil union license and let their church marry them. No Southern Baptist would be forced to approve it. No Roman Catholic (who definitely has more important issues in his church about which to be concerned) need attend the ceremony against his will. And we Methodists can just continue to fight each other over it. Let these guys live their lives as they believe they should.

My daughter recently posted on her Facebook wall a wonderful speech of Sen. Diane Savino from the floor of the New York Senate. Savino comes close to convincing me to take the next step and just go ahead and approve legal marriage equality. I know nothing else about Sen. Savino, but judging from this one impassioned, articulate, sincere, but also funny speech, this young woman has a future beyond the state senate.

Speech by Senator Diane Savino

Some Feed Lone Wolves

"...lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent right-wing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States."

- Homeland Security department

It is from a report of the Homeland Security department that the likes of Sean, Rush, and Glenn used to blast the Obama administration for supposedly trying to smear merely obnoxious right-wingers as potential terrorists. The fact is, the sentence above is true. Anyone who does not agree with this statement has not been paying attention. The Tim McVieghs, Eric Rudolphs, James von Brunns, Joseph Paul Grahams of America are the most dangerous domestic terrorists.

Violent right-wing extremists are the abortion-crazed zealots who see murder of those who help incest and rape victims get abortions as justified, Neo-Nazis who openly call for killing all Jewish people, Klan idiots who burn crosses on lawns of "misbehaving" black people, Second Amendment "defenders" who would blow up federal buildings and their day-care centers to emphasize in blood their righteous indignation.

I defend the right of these crazies to say what they will. But I also expect a responsible government to keep an eye on them, to take seriously their threats, and to guard against them acting on their crazed beliefs.

All of that has NOTHING to do with peaceful right-wingers who can use their self-evident liberty to petition, argue, sue, persuade, protest, holler, complain, whine, call the President socialist, call a Supreme Court nominee racist, etc., etc., etc. ad infinitum. And I reserve the right to point out the idiocy of blow-hards like Sean, Rush, Lou D., Glenn, Newt, Michael S., Bill O., etc. etc. ad infinitum who feed the Lone Wolves raw meat every day on TV and radio.

Eugene Robinson said it better than I have.

Extremists in the Wings

The abortion bomber at the '96 olympics missed me by only 24 hours. Can anyone deny that there ARE dangerous right-wing extremists in the US? That doesn't reflect on responsible anti-abortion conservatives any more than the existence of the Simbianese Liberation Army should stain my reputation or that of any other thoughtful Democrat.

Violent groups and individuals like the Klan, neo-Nazis, doctor-shooting abortion extremists, the Oklahoma City bombers, etc. are out there. That's just fact. Our government should, within the strictures of the Bill of Rights, be on the watch out for them -- and left-wing extremists, of whom there are also examples.... That does not mean our government should be monitoring you or me -- unless there is enough evidence to convince a judge to issue a warrant.

A well-known conservative commentator (near and dear to me) has taken great umbrage that our Homeland Security department has published a ten-page report on the potential dangers posed by right-wing extremist groups.

I personally am glad that HS is not overlooking the Oklahoma-City-Right-Wing-Bomber-types and Olympic-Right-Wing-Bomber-types while they concentrate on protecting us from the Middle-Eastern-Right-Wing-bomber-types. If you don't mind, I'd even like to be protected from Left-Wing-Bomber-types and those Wild-Eyed-Moderate-Bomber-types.

But yes, dear conservatives, complain. Those sqeaky wheels help to keep the whole constitutional system oiled. Just don't fuss at the noise the ACLU and I make when a Republican President is at the throttle and decides to spy on Americans without warrants.

We should be eternally vigilant to protect everyone's civil rights.

For ourselves and our posterity

President Obama has broken with the policies of the last administration that, I believe, eroded our national reputation and our liberties. He has tried very hard to accomplish this with bipartisanship and without rancor. Some will argue that he has not gone far enough.

But is any executive action by the current President enough?

Aesop said: "Affairs are easier of entrance than of exit; and it is but common prudence to see our way out before we venture in." I have lived to see our country enmeshed in two mistaken wars. I have seen mistakes repeated. I have heard more than one American President mislead the people. We have found ourselves sometimes in murky catacombs where the exits were all steep, slippery, and guarded by dangerous trolls. How can we ensure that the mistaken and/or illegal policies of past administrations do not stand as precedent for some future administration that finds itself in a dark place?

I believe:

• the last administration approved and used torture;
• they blatantly ignored law;
• they misled the nation and the world in their conduct leading to the war in Iraq.
• their actions, however noble or ignoble the motivation, did more harm to our nation than any foreign enemy could.

I also believe:

• the last administration believed it knew best what was good for our country and, in that certitude, arrogated to itself the power to ignore FISA, Geneva conventions, and the Constitution;
• prosecution of the former President, Vice President, or Secretary of Defense, however richly deserved, would further divide the country and possibly, God forbid, result in an acquittal which would make the precedent even stronger.

Some will consider it mean-spirited to point out the mistakes of the last administration now that it is gone. While I admit to anger at times with the conduct of those folks, I have no interest in "rubbing their noses in it". I have tried on the Limb, from the beginning -- with occasional missteps, I'm sure -- to deal realistically with the issues, to avoid name-calling and ad hominem attacks, to stay away from assigning motives in favor of evaluating words and actions. Sometimes I have rewritten posts three or four times to edit out the anger that I don't deny feeling. I certainly do not want our country further divided. At nearly 62 my time here grows short and I yearn for comfortable, friendly, easy relationships. I hate confrontation. I actively hate confrontation.

But our liberty is always only one generation removed from extinction. Our nation has certainly had more articulate and more effective champions but never a more sincere lover. I desperately want my generation to leave our children and grandchildren an America where it is crystal clear basic national principle that:

• the President must follow the law even in wartime;
• though We the People need our servant, the President, to control certain war powers, declaring a never-ending "War" on a tactic does not give the President unlimited or unending powers;
• Americans don't torture;
• Americans recognize self-evident, universal, Creator-endowed, unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;
• if we compromise our principles in response to terrorism, the terrorists have succeeded;

So I ask again: How can we, with the least upheaval and unpleasantness, insure that past mistakes are not repeated? How do We the People, in this generation, provide for the common defense, insure domestic tranquility, AND secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity?

Joy!

This day, that has been anticipated by your host on the Limb for so long, has come and nearly gone. Words cannot adequately convey the joy with which I greet it. Anyone who has visited the Limb since it sprouted in November of 2005, knows how fervantly I have wished an end to the mistakes of the last eight years.

But when I wrote that first post I never dreamed that this day would bring the degree of joy that it has. Not only do we have a Democratic President who has already begun rebuilding our nation's reputation and the integrity of the executive branch, but he is a person of uncommon ability, eloquence, and vision. And he has, merely by his election, made spirits soar for folks who dared not dream that one of their own could lead our nation. What a light shown in the eyes of my minority students today as we watched that wonderful patriot, who happens to be African-American, speak of us of taking responsibility again. He challenged us to "...put aside childish things."

"...greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted -- for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame."

And how reassuring to me were his words specifically reminding us that his obligation is not just to provide for the defense of the living but also to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations."

I have shed tears of joy today. There are those who would mock my tears as tears of naive adulation. They are mistaken. I recognise that, like the icy Delaware that faced Washington and his heroes in 1776, we have daunting challenges before us. There may yet be Valley Forge winters to come. But also like those men who braved the river and the Hessians and the Redcoats, we have a leader of strong ethics, fierce determination, cool intelligence, no wish to be king, and absolute loyalty to the American cause. That gives me great joy and hope.

President Barack Obama

As Michelle Obama holds the Lincoln Bible, her husband (already officially President for four minutes) pledges to "... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

President Obama delivers a dynamic challenge to America.

President Obama and his wife, Michelle, walk down Pennsylvania Avenue today.
(Photos from Newser.com.)

President Barack Hussein Obama

I believe President Obama will be one of the outstanding Presidents of my lifetime. But whatever occurs over the next four or eight years, this day will live in the memories of Americans as one of the most happy moments of our history.
We are beginning to live the dream.

God bless the memory of Charity Stinchcomb and all those who lived as slaves.
God bless the memory of Rosa Parks.
God bless the memory of those little children mistreated
as they integrated schools in the fifties and sixties.
God bless the memory of Medger Evers.
God bless the memory of those three boys in Philiadelphia, Mississippi.
God bless the memory of Dr. King.
God bless the memory of Silas McComb.
God bless the memory of Solomon Lasoi.

God bless this good man, our President.

God bless America.

A Liberal Activist Judge

RJ Matson is one of my favorite cartoonists:

















Click on the cartoon above to see more of his stuff!

Censure George W. Bush

The unprecedented power grab by President Bush, in blatently breaking the FISA law and lying about it, must be stopped by Congress. I challenge my "anything Bush wants in the (permanent) War Against Terrorism" friends to tell me where Senator Feingold is wrong. I don't see it. Either the law applies to all or it doesn't. If it doesn't apply to Bush, then Bush has succeeded where Bin Laden failed: He will have destroyed American liberty.

Remarks of Senator Russ Feingold
Introducing a Resolution to Censure
President George W. Bush

As Prepared

March 13, 2006

Mr. President, when the President of the United States breaks the law, he must be held accountable. That is why today I am introducing a resolution to censure President George W. Bush.

The President authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil, and then misled Congress and the public about the existence and legality of that program. It is up to this body to reaffirm the rule of law by condemning the President’s actions.

All of us in this body took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and bear true allegiance to the same. Fulfilling that oath requires us to speak clearly and forcefully when the President violates the law. This resolution allows us to send a clear message that the President’s conduct was wrong.

And we must do that. The President’s actions demand a formal judgment from Congress.

At moments in our history like this, we are reminded why the founders balanced the powers of the different branches of government so carefully in the Constitution. At the very heart of our system of government lies the recognition that some leaders will do wrong, and that others in the government will then bear the responsibility to do right.

"This President has done wrong. This body can do right by condemning his conduct and showing the people of this nation that his actions will not be allowed to stand unchallenged."

This President has done wrong. This body can do right by condemning his conduct and showing the people of this nation that his actions will not be allowed to stand unchallenged.

To date, members of Congress have responded in very different ways to the President’s conduct. Some are responding by defending his conduct, ceding him the power he claims, and even seeking to grant him expanded statutory authorization powers to make his conduct legal. While we know he is breaking the law, we do not know the details of what the President has authorized or whether there is any need to change the law to allow it, yet some want to give him carte blanche to continue his illegal conduct. To approve the President’s actions now, without demanding a full inquiry into this program, a detailed explanation for why the President authorized it, and accountability for his illegal actions, would be irresponsible. It would be to abandon the duty of the legislative branch under our constitutional system of separation of powers while the President recklessly grabs for power and ignores the rule of law.

Others in Congress have taken important steps to check the President. Senator Specter has held hearings on the wiretapping program in the Judiciary Committee. He has even suggested that Congress may need to use the power of the purse in order to get some answers out of the Administration. And Senator Byrd has proposed that Congress establish an independent commission to investigate this program.

As we move forward, Congress will need to consider a range of possible actions, including investigations, independent commissions, legislation, or even impeachment. But, at a minimum, Congress should censure a president who has so plainly broken the law.

Our founders anticipated that these kinds of abuses would occur. Federalist Number 51 speaks of the Constitution’s system of checks and balances:

“It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

"...we are faced with an executive branch that places itself above the law. "

Mr. President, we are faced with an executive branch that places itself above the law. The founders understood that the branches must check each other to control abuses of government power. The president’s actions are such an abuse, Mr. President. His actions must be checked, and he should be censured.

This President exploited the climate of anxiety after September 11, 2001, both to push for overly intrusive powers in the Patriot Act, and to take us into a war in Iraq that has been a tragic diversion from the critical fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates. In both of those instances, however, Congress gave its approval to the President’s actions, however mistaken that approval may have been.

That was not the case with the illegal domestic wiretapping program authorized by the President shortly after September 11th. The President violated the law, ignored the Constitution and the other two branches of government, and disregarded the rights and freedoms upon which our country was founded. No one questions whether the government should wiretap suspected terrorists. Of course we should, and we can under current law. If there were a demonstrated need to change that law, Congress could consider that step. But instead the President is refusing to follow that law while offering the flimsiest of arguments to justify his misconduct. He must be held accountable for his actions.

The facts are straightforward: Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as “FISA”, nearly 30 years ago to ensure that as we wiretap suspected terrorists and spies, we also protect innocent Americans from unjustified government intrusion. FISA makes it a crime to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without the requisite warrants, and the President has ordered warrantless wiretaps of Americans on U.S. soil. The President has broken that law, and that alone is unacceptable. But the President did much more than that.

"Not only did the President break the law, he also actively misled Congress and the American people about his actions..."

Not only did the President break the law, he also actively misled Congress and the American people about his actions, and then, when the program was made public, about the legality of the NSA program.

He has fundamentally violated the trust of the American people.

The President’s own words show just how seriously he has violated that trust.

We now know that the NSA wiretapping program began not long after September 11th. Before the existence of this program was revealed, the President went out of his way in several speeches to assure the public that the government was getting court orders to wiretap Americans in the United States – something that he now admits was not the case.

On April 20, 2004, for example, the President told an audience in Buffalo that: “Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires – a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way.”

In fact, a lot had changed, but the President wasn’t being upfront with the American people.

Just months later, on July 14, 2004, in my own state of Wisconsin, the President said that: “Any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order. In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order.”

Last summer, on June 9, 2005, the President spoke in Columbus, Ohio, and again insisted that his administration was abiding by the laws governing wiretaps. “Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the U.S.”

In all of these cases, the President knew he wasn’t telling the complete story. But engaged in tough political battle during the presidential campaign, and later over Patriot Act reauthorization, he wanted to convince the public that a systems of checks and balances was in place to protect innocent people from government snooping. He knew when he gave those reassurances that he had authorized the NSA to bypass the very system of checks and balances that he was using as a shield against criticisms of the Patriot Act and his Administration’s performance.

This conduct is unacceptable. The President had a duty to play it straight with the American people. But for political purposes, he ignored that duty.

After a New York Times story exposed the NSA program in December of last year, the White House launched an intensive effort to mislead the American people yet again. No one would come to testify before Congress until February, but the President’s surrogates held press conferences and made speeches to try to convince the public that he had acted lawfully.

"...the President himself participated in this disinformation campaign."

Most troubling of all, the President himself participated in this disinformation campaign. In the State of the Union address, he implied that the program was necessary because otherwise the government would be unable to wiretap terrorists at all. That is simply untrue. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. You don’t need a warrant to wiretap terrorists overseas – period. You do need a warrant to wiretap Americans on American soil and Congress passed FISA specifically to lay out the rules for these types of domestic wiretaps.

FISA created a secret court, made up of judges who develop national security expertise, to issue warrants for surveillance of suspected terrorists and spies. These are the judges from whom the Bush Administration has obtained thousands of warrants since 9/11. They are the judges who review applications for business records orders and wiretapping authority under the Patriot Act. The Administration has almost never had a warrant request rejected by those judges. It has used the FISA Court thousands of times, but at the same time it asserts that FISA is an “old law” or “out of date” in this age of terrorism and can’t be complied with. Clearly, the Administration can and does comply with it – except when it doesn’t. Then it just arbitrarily decides to go around these judges, and around the law.

The Administration has said that it ignored FISA because it takes too long to get a warrant under that law. But we know that in an emergency, where the Attorney General believes that surveillance must begin before a court order can be obtained, FISA permits the wiretap to be executed immediately as long as the government goes to the court within 72 hours. The Attorney General has complained that the emergency provision does not give him enough flexibility, he has complained that getting a FISA application together or getting the necessary approvals takes too long. But the problems he has cited are bureaucratic barriers that the executive branch put in place, and could remove if it wanted.

FISA also permits the Attorney General to authorize unlimited warrantless electronic surveillance in the United States during the 15 days following a declaration of war, to allow time to consider any amendments to FISA required by a wartime emergency. That is the time period that Congress specified. Yet the President thinks that he can do this indefinitely.

The President has argued that Congress gave him authority to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without a warrant when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force after September 11, 2001. Mr. President, that is ridiculous. Members of Congress did not pass this resolution to give the President blanket authority to order warrantless wiretaps. We all know that. Anyone in this body who would tell you otherwise either wasn’t here at the time or isn’t telling the truth. We authorized the President to use military force in Afghanistan, a necessary and justified response to September 11. We did not authorize him to wiretap American citizens on American soil without going through the process that was set up nearly three decades ago precisely to facilitate the domestic surveillance of terrorists – with the approval of a judge. That is why both Republicans and Democrats have questioned this theory.

"It is ridiculous to think that Congress would have negotiated and enacted all the changes to FISA in the Patriot Act if it thought it had just authorized the President to ignore FISA in the AUMF."

This particular claim is further undermined by congressional approval of the Patriot Act just a few weeks after we passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force. The Patriot Act made it easier for law enforcement to conduct surveillance on suspected terrorists and spies, while maintaining FISA’s baseline requirement of judicial approval for wiretaps of Americans in the U.S. It is ridiculous to think that Congress would have negotiated and enacted all the changes to FISA in the Patriot Act if it thought it had just authorized the President to ignore FISA in the AUMF.

In addition, in the intelligence authorization bill passed in December 2001, we extended the emergency authority in FISA, at the Administration’s request, from 24 to 72 hours. Why do that if the President has the power to ignore FISA? That makes no sense at all.

The President has also said that his inherent executive power gives him the power to approve this program. But here the President is acting in direct violation of a criminal statute. That means his power is, as Justice Jackson said in the steel seizure cases half a century ago, “at its lowest ebb.” A letter from a group of law professors and former executive branch officials points out that “every time the Supreme Court has confronted a statute limiting the Commander-in-Chief’s authority, it has upheld the statute.” The Senate reports issued when FISA was enacted confirm the understanding that FISA overrode any pre-existing inherent authority of the President. As the 1978 Senate Judiciary Committee report stated, FISA “recognizes no inherent power of the president in this area.” And “Congress has declared that this statute, not any claimed presidential power, controls.” Contrary to what the President told the country in the State of the Union, no court has ever approved warrantless surveillance in violation of FISA.

The President’s claims of inherent executive authority, and his assertions that the courts have approved this type of activity, are baseless.

But it is one thing to make a legal argument that has no real support in the law. It is much worse to do what the President has done, which is to make misleading statements about what prior Presidents have done and what courts have approved, to try to make the public believe his legal arguments are much stronger than they are.

For example, in the State of the Union, the President argued that federal courts have approved the use of presidential authority that he was invoking. I asked the Attorney General about this when he came before the Judiciary Committee, and he could point me to no court – not the Supreme Court or any other court – that has considered whether, after FISA was enacted, the President nonetheless had the authority to bypass it and authorize warrantless wiretaps. Not one court. The Administration’s effort to find support for what it has done in snippets of other court decisions would be laughable if this issue were not so serious.

In the same speech, the President referred to other Presidents in American history who cited executive authority to order warrantless surveillance. But of course, those past presidents – like Wilson and Roosevelt – were acting before the Supreme Court decided in 1967 that our communications are protected by the Fourth Amendment, and before Congress decided in 1978 that the executive branch could no longer unilaterally decide which Americans to wiretap. I asked the Attorney General about this issue when he testified before the Judiciary Committee. And neither he nor anyone in the Administration has been able to come up with a single prior example of wiretapping inside the United States since 1978 that was conducted outside FISA’s authorization.

So the President’s arguments in the State of the Union were baseless, and it is unacceptable that the President of the United States would so obviously mislead the Congress and American public.

The President also has argued that periodic internal executive branch review provides an adequate check on the program. He has even characterized this periodic review as a safeguard for civil liberties. But we don’t know what this check involves. And we do know that Congress explicitly rejected this idea of unilateral executive decision-making in this area when it passed FISA.

Finally, the President has tried to claim that informing a handful of congressional leaders, the so-called Gang of Eight, somehow excuses breaking the law. Of course, several of these members said they weren’t given the full story. And all of them were prohibited from discussing what they were told. So the fact that they were informed under these extraordinary circumstances does not constitute congressional oversight, and it most certainly does not constitute congressional approval of the program.

Indeed, it doesn’t even comply with the National Security Act, which requires the entire memberships of the House and Senate Intelligence Committee to be “fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States.” Nor does the latest agreement to allow a seven-member subcommittee to review the program comply with the law. Granting a minority of the committee access to information is inadequate and still does not comply with the law requiring that the full committee be kept fully informed.

In addition, we now know that some of the Gang of Eight expressed concern about the program. The Administration ignored their protests. One of the eight members of Congress who has been briefed about the program, Congresswoman Jane Harman, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, has said she sees no reason why the Administration cannot accomplish its goals within the law as currently written.

None of the President’s arguments explains or excuses his conduct, or the NSA’s domestic spying program. Not one. It is hard to believe that the President has the audacity to claim that they do.

"He essentially argues that the American people should trust him simply because of the office he holds."

And perhaps that is what is most troubling here, Mr. President. Even more troubling than the arguments the President has made is what he relies on to make them convincing – the credibility of the office of the President itself. He essentially argues that the American people should trust him simply because of the office he holds.

But Presidents don’t serve our country by just asking for trust, they must earn that trust, and they must tell the truth.

This President hides behind flawed legal arguments, and even behind the office he holds, but he cannot hide from what he has created: nothing short of a constitutional crisis. The President has violated the law, and Congress must respond. Congress must investigate and demand answers. Congress should also determine whether current law is inadequate and address that deficiency if it is demonstrated. But before doing so, Congress should ensure that there is accountability for authorizing illegal conduct.

A formal censure by Congress is an appropriate and responsible first step to assure the public that when the President thinks he can violate the law without consequences, Congress has the will to hold him accountable. If Congress does not reaffirm the rule of law, we will create another failure of leadership, and deal another blow to the public’s trust.

"We in the Congress bear the responsibility to check a President who has violated the law, who continues to violate the law, and who has not been held accountable for his actions."

The President’s wrongdoing demands a response. And not just a response that prevents wrongdoing in the future, but a response that passes judgment on what has happened. We in the Congress bear the responsibility to check a President who has violated the law, who continues to violate the law, and who has not been held accountable for his actions.

Passing a resolution to censure the President is a way to hold this President accountable. A resolution of censure is a time-honored means for the Congress to express the most serious disapproval possible, short of impeachment, of the Executive’s conduct. It is different than passing a law to make clear that certain conduct is impermissible or to cut off funding for certain activities. Both of those alternatives are ways for Congress to affect future action. But when the President acts illegally, he should be formally rebuked. He should be censured.

The founders anticipated abuses of executive power by creating a balance of powers in the Constitution. Supporting and defending the Constitution, as we have taken an oath to do, require us to preserve that balance, and to have the will to act. We must meet a serious transgression by the President with a serious response. We must work, as the founders urged us in Federalist Number 51, to control the abuses of government.

The Constitution looks to the Congress to right the balance of power. The American people look to us to take action, to speak out, with one clear voice, against wrongdoing by the President of the United States. In our system of government, no one, not even the President, is above the law.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the resolution be printed in the Record following my remarks. I yield the floor.

"In our system of government, no one, not even the President, is above the law."