(Rawstory)Senators considering constitutional amendment to limit

[cal04]

RAWSTORY
Senators considering constitutional amendment to limit war powers

As Capitol Hill prepares to battle the White House over George W. Bush's expanding war powers, moderate Senators on both sides of the aisle are quietly considering a range of options that would attempt at the very least to delineate the President's authority, if not roll it back. Bush's claims of wartime license are so great-the White House and Justice Department have argued that the Commander in Chief's pursuit of national security cannot be constrained by any laws passed by Congress, even when he is acting against U.S. citizens-that some Senators are considering a constitutional amendment to limit his powers, Massimo Calabresi and Timothy J. Burger report in MONDAY's TIME. Excerpts:

In the public-opinion battle over domestic eavesdropping, Bush won the first round by arguing that he needed the unchecked power to learn “if there are people inside our country who are talking with al-Qaeda.” With poll numbers split on the issue, spooked Senators hunkered down. But in recent days, Senate Democrats and the Judiciary Committee's Republican chairman, Arlen Specter, have fired off nine letters to the Justice Department and the White House demanding information on the domestic-spying program. At Senate hearings last week, the former head of the National Security Agency refused even in closed session to say how many phones had been tapped in the U.S. This reticence comes after conflicting public estimates from President Bush (“a few” U.S. phones) and his Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff “thousands”.

A source familiar with the nascent constitutional amendment says one version would make clear that any actions by the President as Commander in Chief that affect domestic policies or U.S. citizens are subject to the exclusive control of Congress. “Congress can't completely cede wartime power to the President,” the source says. Talk of an amendment could end up as merely a lever in hearings. Then again, the first 10 amendments-better known as the Bill of Rights-were demanded by the states in part to curb the Constitution's broad presidential powers.

DEVELOPING...FULL STORY ON TIME LATE SUNDAY AFTERNOON...
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Senators_considering_constitutional_amendment_to_limit_0205.html

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. Crap..... I thought it was going to say limit treason.... nt.

[AndyA]

2. Presidential power

I don't think any realistic American citizen wants to tie the President's hands during a time of war. But there is a system of checks and balances in place that must be followed to protect the interests of all citizens. And this is a very important part of the American way of life.

To remove it diminishes the rights of all American citizens, and we no longer have a democracy.

If the President needs faster response from FISA, it should be given to him, but not removed in the interest of time.

And any President or elected official who values the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence would want to ensure these things are preserved and protected, not circumvented, regardless of the circumstances.

That is what America is all about.

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. This president was never about respecting our Constitution and

our method of checks and balances. He was going to go balls to the wall on breaking the rules to follow his unjustifable personal agenda, and if no one stops him, he will set a terrible, terrible precedent.

Keep in mind that we were warned. We were warned by Eisenhauer and by one of the Roosevelts. There are powerful people/families in the private sector who believe that it's okay for them to use the government to pursue capitalist interests. As long as their families get rich, they couldn't care less about the rest of us. They like chaos, because they will always benefit from it.

[Virginia Dare]

3. Is this really necessary if Congress actually does the job they were

charged to do? Just playing devil's advocate.

[MelissaB]

4. I don't know that this congress could control this president no matter

how much they tried.

[northzax]

6. sure they can, they write the checks

the Executive can't spend money without authorisation from the Congress. Any deparment that resists reasonable oversight, zero out the pay for the executives.

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. Another question...does it really matter if they limit his war powers?

He'll just do whatever the hell he wants to do anyway. WTF does it matter what Congress does at this point? Law matter not to these people. :(

[orwell]

7. The real problem...

...one party rule. When one party controls all three branches of government, as well as effectively controlling the fourth estate (the press) through interlocking corporate ownership, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says. It is effectively a dictatorship.

[fooj]

8. It's simple, IMO. If these Senators honored their oath of office...

this wouldn't even be an issue. Little Lord Pissypants does what he wants BECAUSE HE CAN.

Peace.