Sen. Byrd
"When the North wrestled the South for the soul of this nation in the 19th century, America stood at a crossroads. Then as now, transcendent and solid leadership is essential to our ultimate success."
"As long as there is a forum in which questions can be asked by men and women who do not stand in awe of a chief executive and one can speak as long as one's feet will allow one to stand, the liberties of the American people will be secure."
"The Senate is larger than the sum total of its 100 members. When the duly elected Representatives of the people gather in the Senate chamber, they become much more than the combined intellects, talents, and idiosyncracies of 100 individuals. They become the living, breathing manifestation of the vision of the Framers -- the guardians of the spirit and the soul of the sovereign people of this nation."
These were from his website, here:
http://byrd.senate.gov/In regard to his vote
against Condoleeza Rice for SoS, the following statements were made:
The Constitution, in Article Two, Section Two, states that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States..." Recognizing that the Senate's role of advice and consent is one of the few legislative powers explicitly cited in the Constitution, Senator Byrd believes that it is a power that Senators of both parties must rigorously protect. It is not a ceremonial exercise.
With regard to this nomination, Senator Byrd has been particularly concerned about Dr. Rice's role in crafting the Bush doctrine of preemption, or the first-strike war. No one denies that the President has the inherent authority to repel attacks against our country, but Senator Byrd believes that the doctrine of first-strike war against another country which does not pose an imminent threat to the United States is unconstitutional.
In Federalist Number 76, Alexander Hamilton wrote:
"It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entire branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing."
Although Hamilton explains the importance of the role of the Senate in the appointment of officers of the United States, neither he, nor the Constitution, is specific about what criteria Senators must use to judge the qualifications of a nominee. The Constitution only requires that the Senate give its advice and consent. It is therefore left to Senators to use their own judgment in considering their vote. The factors involved in such judgments may vary among Senators, among nominees, and may even change in response to the needs of the times.
(He then highly praises Rice's qualifications, education and background.)
...The vote that the Senate will conduct tomorrow, however, is not simply a formality to approve of a nominee's educational achievement or level of expertise. I do not subscribe to the notion that the Senate must confirm a President's nominees, barring criminality or lack of experience. The Constitution enjoins Senators to use their judgment in considering nominations.
I have stood on this Senate floor more times than I can count to defend the prerogatives of this institution and the separate but equal – with emphasis on the word "equal" – powers of the three branches of government. A unique power of the Legislative Branch is the Senate's role in providing advice and consent on the matter of nominations. That power is not vested in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee or any other committee; nor does it repose in a handful of Senate leaders. It is not a function of pomp and circumstance, and it was never intended by the Framers to be used to burnish the image of a President on inauguration day.
And yet that is exactly what Senators were being pressured to do last week – to acquiesce mutely to the nomination of one of the most important members of the President's Cabinet without the merest hiccup of debate or the smallest inconvenience of a roll call vote.
...This doctrine of preemptive strikes places the sole decision of war and peace in the hands of the President and undermines the Constitutional power of Congress to declare war. The Founding Fathers required that such an important issue of war be debated by the elected representatives of the people in the Legislative Branch precisely because no single man could be trusted with such an awesome power as bringing a nation to war by his decision alone. And yet, that it exactly what the National Security Strategy proposes.
Not only does this pernicious doctrine of preemptive war contradict the Constitution, it barely acknowledges its existence. The National Security Strategy makes only one passing reference to the Constitution: it states that "America's constitution" -- that is "constitution" with a small C -- "has served us well." As if the Constitution does not still serve this country well! One might ask if that reference to the Constitution was intended to be a compliment or an obituary?
...We can all agree that the President, any President, has the inherent duty and power to repel an attack on the United States. But where in the Constitution can the President claim the right to strike at another nation before it has even threatened our country, as Dr. Rice asserted in that speech? To put it plainly, Dr. Rice has asserted that the President holds far more of the war power than the Constitution grants him.
...Accountability has become an old-fashioned notion in some circles these days, but accountability is not a negotiable commodity when it comes to the highest circles of our nation's government. The accountability of government officials is an obligation, not a luxury. And yet, accountability is an obligation that this President and his administration appear loath to fulfill.
Although I do not question her credentials, I do oppose many of the critical decisions that Dr. Rice has made during her four years as National Security Advisor. She has a record, and the record is there for us to judge. There remain too many unanswered questions about Dr. Rice's failure to protect our country before the tragic attacks of September 11, her public efforts to politicize intelligence, and her often stated allegiance to the doctrine of preemption.
To confirm Dr. Rice to be the next Secretary of State is to say to the American people, and the world, that the answers to those questions are no longer important. Her confirmation will most certainly be viewed as another endorsement of the Administration's unconstitutional doctrine of preemptive war, its bullying policies of unilateralism, and its callous rejection of our long-standing allies.
The stakes for the United States are too high. I cannot endorse higher responsibilities for those who helped set our great country down the path of increasing isolation, enmity in the world, and a war that has no end. For these reasons, I shall cast my vote in opposition to the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice to be the next Secretary of State.
###
Whew. I posted a lot of text there, and I hope nobody minds, but this speech really seems to me to provide some great insight into how Senator Byrd thinks. And I think, given his comments, that he could be convinced to vote against Alito. It seems an approach focusing on whether Alito would favor the executive branch over that of the legislative might be convincing to him. And Alito, after all, was the guy who came up with the idea of the "signing statement," a usurpation of legislative powers if there ever was one.
I might also add that its clear from this speech that Senator Byrd is really an amazing speaker and a great statesman. I recommend reading the entire thing - I've left a lot out that's really impressive.
The Republicans have identified Byrd as "Undecided, Key Vote" and also say this:
Call now at 202-224-3954. Tell Senator Robert C. Byrd to stand with Alito, not Ted Kennedy and far-left attack groups.http://www.gop.com/DemocratsonAlito/state.asp?s=WV(Sorry about the Republican link, don't think I've gone over to the dark side. It was pointed out to me by another poster (tritsofme - who we should all thank for this great find) that the Republicans have created that site and identified where all the Dems stand on the vote (there's a big map and you click on the state). It really does seem a good place to get info on who we should be contacting too. Here it is:
http://www.gop.com/DemocratsonAlito/ )
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
