Relax, folks. The new FISA law won't pass constituional muster.

[Hawkeye-X]

It is a clear violaton of the 4th Amendment and the ex posto facto law. Plenty of precedents to back this up. Besides, when we take the White House, we can use it to our advantage to exploit why it needs to be struck down. Then the telecoms will lose its retroactive immunity and be sued as appropriate. President Obama can certainly encourage the filibusterproof Democratic Congress to pass a new law as early as Feburary of 2009 to remove the immunity. President Obama can enact his own executive law removing the immunity if he chooses to do so. I think a lot of good things will happen when Obama is the Prez. I have a little bit more confidence in that. I know some of you are upset, but to me, I think even with Chimps last six months in the WH, he won't be able to abuse it much because then we will be watching him like a hawk expecting him to abuse it. That will put him in new pressure to leave a better legacy (ha) which I doubt will even happen. Call me crazy, but that is what I am thinking right now.

Sorry if it looks like I am droning its because I am writing on my mobile device right now.

[liberal N proud]

1. With this Supreme Court?

It's anyones guess to if it will stand the test.

[mediaman007]

2. There is always this hope:

The lower courts will find it unconstitutional and the Democratic administration will not appeal the decision!

[blondeatlast]

4. FISA makes it even more imperative that we get a Democratic president in the WH.

The old "bedfellows" problem, but so be it.

I think you've made a very good point.

[Bake]

23. Until you have a split in the Circuits, then SCOTUS needs to decide it.

Bake

[Johonny]

24. well FISA isn't new

This is just a modified version of the old law. They have been spying first, get warrant later for a while. I doubt the court will rule against this law.

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. Neither does torture. n/t

[Puckster]

5. Bush's appointment by the SCOTUS shouldn't have passed muster.....

and yet, here we are. I like your optimism.

[Occam Bandage]

6. Ex post facto? How does that come into play here?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Might not even pass the Senate.

Reid's making noise about not bringing it up for a vote, and a couple of other senators have pledged filibusters.

It's Obama's party now, and it looks like he might fight the bill by proxy.

[Catherina]

9. It better not. It just better not if they all know what's good for them n/t

[senseandsensibility]

10. Do you have a link for Reid saying that?

I'm having trouble keeping up with all the twists and turns here. Thanks.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Nah, no link.

Reported on Countdown last night.

[blondeatlast]

13. Gotcha-below. nt

[blondeatlast]

12. Here ya go:

Final Senate action on an overhaul of electronic surveillance rules could slip to after the July Fourth recess as the chamber juggles other priorities and procedural snarls.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., said clearing the bill (HR 6304) this week is less important than completing work on housing (HR 3221) and Medicare (HR 6331) legislation.

The spying bill would rewrite the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA, PL 95-511).

Reid said Republicans have been holding up the housing bill, thus causing a delay of the FISA legislation, which is supported by the Bush administration.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000002905661

[Coexist]

14. here

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/washington/18nsa.html?ref=us

[Breeze54]

17. He said he'd delay the vote until after the July 4th break,.... it was posted all over GD

Senate Vote on FISA Bill May Wait Until July

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002905661

By Tim Starks, CQ Staff

Final Senate action on an overhaul of electronic surveillance rules could slip to after
the July Fourth recess as the chamber juggles other priorities and procedural snarls.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., said clearing the bill (HR 6304) this week
is less important than completing work on housing (HR 3221) and Medicare (HR 6331) legislation.

The spying bill would rewrite the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA, PL 95-511).

Reid said Republicans have been holding up the housing bill, thus causing a delay of the
FISA legislation, which is supported by the Bush administration.

Reid said Wednesday that he still planned to move the FISA bill this week — even though he
opposes it — because he has an “obligation” to act on the measure. It has the support of a
majority of senators, including many Democrats.

“I’m going to try to do that,” Reid said. “The only reason why I wouldn’t is . . . if we’re
stuck on the housing thing and I can’t get to that.”

But he left open the possibility that the FISA vote could be delayed until July.

more.... http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002905661

[Catherina]

8. The problem isn't passing constitutional muster, it's passing into law

and cementing the ugly precedents that if a President says so, it's law. It's also the disgusting capitulation for no earthly reasons to a bill written by the Telecoms, Republicans and Blue Dogs.

It also doesn't matter if Bush only has 6 months. NO President should have that power. What if Obama doesn't win? What about future Presidents?

[FrenchieCat]

16. He won't win with the endless ragging about him......

because the complaining is going to affect his fundraising, and if that doesn't work out, we lose to John McCain.

It's one thing to register one's displeasure....and to clearly communicate such; It is quite another to rag on him for weeks on end.


Thus far I have seen complaints that he hasn't announced his support to shut down the SOA, although he has clearly stated that he will review this issue once elected. Announcing shutting down the SOA would be the end of his election chances. Just ask Dennis Kucinich. Carter and Clinton didn't close the school down, but yet folks want Obama to run on that platform? He didn't say it was all fine with the SOA....but obviously for the extreme purists, that is not enough.

Complaints that he doesn't support reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, as though reinstating it would do anything about anything. It wouldn't. The problem is that 5 corporation owns everything, and that the Fairness doctrine doesn't take into consideration cable channels, only public airwave broadcast networks. I one cannot break up the monopoly that big media enjoys at the moment, then the Fairness Doctrine is just a feel good word game. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

Complaints that he isn't going to fillibuster the FISA bill. I disagree with his willingness to accept the rework of the bill, have stated so, and have moved on to the real work of electing Barack Obama as opposed to ragging on the issue day in, day out.

Complaints that he believes that the Death penalty, in certain cases, may be warranted in the case of child rape. That he should stand with the court on this would open him up to more than we have yet figured, but that he has obviously taken under consideration. But till then, we forget that every single winning Democrat for the presidency has been for the DP, excluding Carter, who was given only one term.

There is more of course to rag on......and so we shall....endlessly,

until we'll be scratching our asses trying to figure out what happened on November 4th when John McCain wins.

I guess than we can complain for another 4 years.

[Catherina]

19. I hear where you're coming from but the alternative is blind trust

One reason the Republicans win so well is that their candidates have no problem standing up for what they believe in and running on that platform. They appeal to the lowest instincts and live up to their promises consistently, without giving their supporters any doubt about how they'll behave. Is it too much to ask our politicians to behave as consistently to prove they really mean it?

SOA isn't up for a vote and the DP thing is just an opinion. I can give him a pass on both of those but the FISA thing demands action right here, right now. How much longer can you realistically expect people who care more about issues than personality to go by a politicians' words instead of his actions?

At this point I'm running on trust with Obama and it's a feeling that leaves me queasy. It's not just the FISA, there are several things that happened before FISA that we had the good grace to just swallow. I can't tell you how much this has discouraged me. What's discouraging me even more is the propensity among some supporters to excuse everything and tell people just to trust. That's not directed at you because you've been absolutely great at patiently discussing without insulting people or their intelligence.

Obama's in charge of his campaign. He managed to get this far with the enthusiastic support of the netroots. Why the sudden change? Do you really buy the argument that he "has" to do this? I'm not a purist. If I were I never would have signed on with Obama so early and fought as hard as I did. Obama needs to take notice of the effect in the blogosphere and decide if it's worth losing that kind of passionate, hard-working support to try to appeal to people who can't think for themselves and believe anything the MSM tells them.

[depakid]

21. "decide if it's worth losing that kind of passionate, hard-working support"

Recent actions seem to indicate that decision has already been made, in all likelihood by the same sets of consultants who've brought the Democratic party so many national victories over the past 14 years....

[Catherina]

22. That bothers me immensely. I expected it but not with such breath-taking nonchalance n/t

[11 Bravo]

15. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but ...

the Constitution now means whatever Fat Tony, Slappy, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy say it means. I'll be ready to relax when we elect a Democratic President, and Fat Tony has one too many bacon cheeseburgers.

[Zodiak]

18. Ex post facto is not violated

Why?

Because ex post facto only applies to prosecuting someone who did something that was legal at the time but later made illegal, not the other way around.

The framers didn't care so much about the guilty going free....they worried about innocent being wrongly convicted. It seems that America these days has turned that philosophy on its head.

Please do not use the ex post facto argument....it is not true and makes us look ignorant of the law and traditions of this country.

The Constitutional argument against the Bill of Rights is fine.

[depakid]

20. Correct -Congress can retroactively excuse liability provided that

it isn't considered intangible "property."

If it is property, e.g. a "vested right of action," then legally it's protected against arbitrary interference, and compensation (at least) would be due.

Presumably Obama understands this, but isn't overly concerned.

See: Is It Constitutional for the Senate to Retroactively Immunize From Civil Liability the Telecoms That Provided the Government with Information About Customers' Communications?

by Anthony J. Sebok, Professor at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20080129.html

[totodeinhere]

25. Yes, but it might take it several years to wind itself through the court system.

That's why the Senate needs to stop it now.