Dodd is speaking on FISA now
By John Amato Sunday Feb 10, 2008 8:31pmCSPAN2...
Dodd: Personal privacy is protected because it is essential to liberty in the pursuit of happiness. Our Constitution checks the power of government for the purpose of protecting the rights of individuals in order that all our citizens may live in a free and decent society.
Matt Browner Hamlin explains the "FISA Process, Unanimous Consent, & Dodd’s Filibuster"
Login or Register to post comments.
Couldn't find it at their site. Do they stream on the web?
Thanks John. Always glad to watch and be made aware of a little history. Peace.
Go, Sen. Dodd:
No wonder I like you so much.
There are some links to the right of this page curt...
http://www.c-span.org/watch/cspan_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS
Click the C-Span 2 link.
This is an honorable man.
I hope there are others that will stand up with him. It's goimg to be a long night.
RetroActive Immunity is just another Bush Crime Family legal scam. I am so sick of their KRAP. The Republican Party is nothing but a bunch of organized ENABLERS for criminal behavior for those in leadership positions.
IMPEACH!
Although the primary blame for the impending passage of retroactive immunity lies clearly and primarily with the Republicans, Reid and the rest of the scumbag Democrats in name only get secondary blame, and unfortunately Dodd and anyone else that agreed to unanimous consent for any part of this piece of shit legislation deserve blame as well. Our nation and Constitution have been sold out to to telecom money.
He just asked how long he had been speaking: 2 hours 25 minutes was the answer.
Awesome.
He's been speaking for 2 hours and 25 minutes.
Senator Dodd is on a roll:
"We must ask WHY did the administration ask for this broad-based immunity?
"The President's THREAT of a veto should NEVER be a reason to stop good legislation from going forward.
"What matter could be more important than defending the Constitution of the United States?
Over Two Hours and Twenty minutes! THAT's how long Senator Dodd spoke on the importance of fighting the Bush administration on this issue. He's a new HERO of mine!
Dodd has been our best stalwart on this issue. The cloture/unanimous consent issue is a complicated one, friggin rules of the Senate. But i'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on his decision to agree to unanimous consent. I'm not giving up on him, not tonight. He's on fire tonight.
There would be no reason for immunity if they hadn't committed a crime.
Dodd just framed the issue in a very interesting way: What is the rational for seeking such unprecedented retroactive immunity and deny our courts the power to determine the legality of this program?
Why do I find that so interesting? Because it frames the issue in terms of the Separation of Powers. He's arguing that once a person, a company or the Executive Branch of the government has taken action, a law granting retroactive immunity is, in essence, a usurpation of the Judicial Power by the Legislature. Typically, the Supreme Court upholds it when Congress delegates its Legislative Powers away, but strikes it down when Congress grabs either Executive or Judicial Power for itself.
If Congress passes any sort of retroactive immunity, perhaps our greatest Constitutional scholars can work on finding standing for a plaintiff or victim whose day in court would be denied by such an inappropriate power grab. Framed in terms of proper procedure, rights of victims, etc., it might grab at least the attention of conservatives on the court.
Oh, and.....Thank you, Sen. Dodd! I so wish I had been able to vote for you for president!
They just adjourned, maybe because there is no quorum so no need to fillibuster tonight?
Anyway, I gotta pile of man-love for Dodd. I wish he was still running.
We need a reverse ex-post facto clause in the Constitution.
Rahm_Emanuel_Is_A_Tool @ 16:
He noted the lack of a quorum before he yielded.
Rahm_Emanuel_Is_A_Tool @ 16:
You know what? I agree. Whoever the next Democratic President is had better return the Executive branch to lawful working order or so help me Dog, I’ll tear them a new asshole in person! You hear me Hillarity? A New Asshole!!
The Nazis had music playing while people walked into concentration camps and we have Faux News " Natalie Holloway update " CNN " baby bites back video " and tomorrow John Roberts with the " most news in the morning " pimped , Vending Machine that sells Pot .
Dodd could use the help of an honest and professional NEWSSSSS media that would report the erosion of our civil liberties , you know maybe 10% the time the devote to say , the periodic Panda Story , or maybe 1 % of the time the spend on asking each other during this campaign " WILL IT BACK FIRE ? " .
I see corporations spying on us , and very little outrage . I see FBI Deputize Private Contractors With Extraordinary Powers, Including 'Shoot to Kill' ...called INFRAGARD, story found on AlterNet.com ; not F'N CNN; not F'N CBS; not on F'n NBC . The FBI has over 20,000 stooges in different industry , to do surveillance on fellow citizens and to help in " emergencies " including martial Law .
Put a fork into it , it's done . Not enough people are outraged that our liberties are nearly gone . The Surveillance State is here ..
Here's a question constitutional scholars probably never thought they would ever have to answer:
What if:
>Someone commits a crime.
>The legislature grants them retroactive immunity (kind of the reverse of a post facto law)
>The government changes hands and legislates to strike down the retroactive immunity.
So, the question is, are the criminals protected by the ex-post-facto clause in Article I, section 9 or not? Remember the original crime was still a crime when it was committed. In fact it would still be illegal even after granting the retroactive immunity, wouldn't it?
Which brings up another question - does this bill nullify the FISA law, suspend it, or just provide circumstances under which it can be circumvented?
SadButTrue @ 21:
Very well done!
I imagine scholars probably have some answers ready, but I'd simply phrase the questions this way:
Is a post-act / pre-trial Congressional act granting immunity from liability Constitutional in the first place?
If so, is Congress estopped from repealing the grant of immunity later?
Does anyone know if the three Pres.Canditate/Senators, Clinton, Obama and McCain will show up to vote on Dodd's issues issues in the Senate tomorrow? Or is campaigning too important to be interupted by such a mediochre thing as restoring the 4th amendment?
Interesting question. We shall see....
Chris Dodd: a true American. Makes me tear up when he defends the Constitution like this.
Jamie @ 23:
I believe that Harry Reid has scheduled FISA related votes tomorrow, Tuesday, which also happens to be the Chesapeake area primaries. Clinton, Obama, and McCain will all be in the 'area' so they should have no difficulty being available for this important issue to vote on.
Clinton and Obama won't be there. One will be in Texas; the other will be in Wisconsin. They teh suck.
As to quorums ... there were, maybe, five people watching Dodd in person. It's standard Senate behavior to note the absence of a quorum when you yield; it means no-one is charged for the time. It's not like there's a quorum present very often.
As to whether this was a filibuster ... it wasn't. It was open time. Since cloture was filed on Friday, along with the UC, there's nothing to filibuster until all the amendments are voted on. Then you get one last chance in the Senate to block the final vote. Don't hold your breath, though.
Today I came home to find out if you call AAA and tell them that you are related to and are living with the person at the address you give them, they will tell you everything they know about the people that live at that address from an Insurance database. True story - The person who called doesn't even have to be related to you they just were freindly and chatty and told them that you are and bamm the doors to information were opened. OF course I called the AAA gal and gave her a piece of my mind - BUT What privacy is left with the era of "internets tubes" and "universal databases" I ask you? NONE! There isn't any bleeping privacy left and good luck getting the "eudumacated" young people of this country to understand "privacy" their parents have been the worst offenders and now they are ready to offend the rest of us.
Dodd does his father proud. And that's saying a lot.
Re the Matt Browner Hamlin post.
Rockefeller is a fucking prick. I don't know how someone that sleazy lives with himself. Complete sell-out piece of shit.
He can go fuck himself forever.
Unfortunately, the senate will pass telecom immunity, thanks to the great work of "Give 'em head" Harry Reid in siding with the Shrub.
You know, something just occurred to me that I hadn't thought of before but was prompted by Dodd's comment re: the constitutional right to privacy. I am sure others have said this before, but part of the problem here is that the right doesn't recognize a constitutional right of privacy. After all, privacy is one of "penumbra of rights" guaranteed by the constitution, not a right specifically guaranteed. It is also on the basis of this "penumbral" right that interracial marriage and abortion became legal, and anti-sodomy laws were overturned.
It seems that their illegal spying on Americans may have a root in their constitutional philosophy and worldview.
Kahoneez @ 20:
i'm with ya, brother.
damn shame.
What I want to know is, why aren't Obamma and Clinton up there presenting the arguments that Dodd is giving? Why do they lackhis passion? They aspire to be president. As president, defending the Constitution would be their highest duty. Yet, neither one will breathe a word about the damage that has been done to - or is being contemplated being done upon our Constitution, all in the name of some dimly imagined security. Dodd is doing their job for them, because they can't be troubled, are oblivious or are complicit.
There two, and only two, kinds of places that can provide the kind of "security" these folks desire: maximum security prisons and graveyards. Take your pick.
Paul @ 33:
Obama voted AGAINST immunity, shillary didn't show up. How could she vote against her MAJOR owners/donors ?? Didn't hear abt McInsane.
Chairman Conyers Writes to White House Counsel Fielding on Amnesty February 12th, 2008 by Jesse Lee In a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding today, Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers indicated that the secret documents recently provided by the White House do not justify the Senate amnesty provision. In addition, Chairman Conyers reiterated previous requests for additional information that the White House has not yet provided and requested declassification so that more information on this crucial issue may be provided to the American public.
Full text of the letter (pdf):
http://speaker.gov/blog/
Watch Chairman Conyers discuss the matter during markup of the RESTORE Act, when a Republican amendment to include immunity was offered:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7tBUhuCuho&eurl=http://speaker.gov/blog/
Oops: White House spokesman admits telecoms spied John Byrne
Published: Tuesday February 12, 2008
Oops.
On the eve of a vote to give telephone companies immunity for their alleged participation in the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretap program, White House spokesperson Dana Perino admitted that the companies actually spied.
Because they were 'patriotic.'
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Oops_White_House_spokesman_admits_telecoms...
Login or Register to post comments.