President has a Constitutional authority above any law passed by Congress

[Stephanie]

Sen. Roberts just now on MTP. Roosevelt did it too, at a time of war.

[warrior1]

1. We're not at war.

[jerryster]

6. Wait a minute.

I'm opposed to the war, to the illegal wiretapping and to Bush in general. But can you say we're not at war? There is a war going on.

[kenny blankenship]

12. What country are we fighting?

When do we know they've surrendered? Wars end with treaties--whose signature are we trying to compel? Bush doesn't call what's happening in Iraq a war. Iraq is our good democratic ally! What's happening in Afghanistan isn't a war either. The administration won't say we're at war in Afghanistan--Afghanistan is our good democratic ally!
We're at war with no one in particular and with no front lines over no territory and without a set of concessions an enemy head of state must sign and agree to...

Are we fighting the whole world? (Certainly seems like Bush has given the whole world an ultimatum to obey us or face annihilation) Or is it just our own democracy we're trying to subdue by force of arms?

[SmokingJacket]

45. It's as much as war as The War on Drugs. nt

[LostinVA]

18. We are definitely not at war

Neither legally, Constitutionally, nor factually.

[ET Awful]

19. Could you tell us when a declaration of war was ratified by congress?

Without a formal declaration of war, we are not, in the legal sense, at war.

[jerryster]

39. Legal sense?

I don't know how old you are. I grew up during Viet Nam. War was never declared for that horrible tragedy. But when soldiers are sent to fight and die, even when it's wrong, unjustified and every other negative you can think of, isn't it still a war? 58,000+ dead in Nam, over 2,000 dead in Iraq.

Now I think that there are more important issues than semantics going on. I call it a war, you don't. That's OK with me. Let's end the goddam thing, whatever it is, bring the troops home and in November let's take control of at least 1 House.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. Correct, Viet Nam was not an official war either.

Any attempt by Nixon or Johnson to justify executive actions based on emergency wartime powers would have been just as bogus. You cannot claim a legal basis for wartime executive powers when, in a legal sense, we are not at war. At least you cannot make such a claim without be ridiculed for making a patently false argument.

[CatWoman]

69. actually, Viet Nam was officially referred to as the "Viet Nam Conflict"

not the Viet Nam War.

[HamdenRice]

44. This is a LEGAL question ...

In other words, there is no dispute that hostilities are occurring and the military is deployed, etc.

But the president claims his authority comes from being a "war president" -- which is Bushspeak for invoking the president's "war powers."

But war powers are in effect after a formal and legal declaration of war.

War can only be declared by Congress, not by the president, and Congress has not done so.

Otherwise call it what you will -- a police action (Korea, Vietnam) or a limited deployment or whatever. But the president cannot invoke war powers without a declaration of war.

Now that the Iraq regime has been liquidated, there is no one to declare against. War is declared against sovereign states, and the US is now in the middle of a sectarian civil war and resistance to occupation.

There is no war in the constitutional sense.

[Warren Stupidity]

54. "War is declared against sovereign states"

actually we declared war against the Barbary Pirates early on (Jefferson's administration I believe.) There is precedent for a declaration of war against al qaeda. Our little fascists didn't want to do that, as that would not be a 'war without end' their 'long war' that would be the justification for all of the crap they have pulled so far and intend to pull for the foreseeable future.

[timtom]

52. It is NOT a "war"

To call it so gives it some measure of authenticity.

It is an illegal invasion.

Vietnam was an illegal invasion. I was there.

[FreedomAngel82]

60. Please go and read the Constitution

[ET Awful]

65. We are discussing LEGAL issues. To be specific, whether a president

is entitled to override Constitutional protections as a consequence of being at war. Considering that legally, we are not at war, no such legal argument can be made.

The matter of whether troops should be brought home (which they should) is something else entirely, we are talking about legal justifications for the domestic actions of this President.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. Being 'at war' requires a 'declaration of war'.

You cannot make a legalistic argument: various presidents exceeded their constitutional authority during a state of war (and the courts have ruled that Roosevelt and Lincoln acted illegally) and then ignore the fact that legally we are not at war.

Lincoln's illegal suspension of habeus coprus and roosevelts illegal detnetion of japanese americans were examples of abuse of presidential authority, they are not case studies that justify it.

[TahitiNut]

66. We're way beyond the question of any declaration. There is NO WAR.

The war against Afghanistan ended when the government toppled and a new government replaced it. Done. Fini. The remainder is an occupation. The war against Iraq ended when the government toppled and a new government replaced it. Done. Fini. The remainder is an occupation.

The occupation of a country with a puppet government is NOT a war. It's colonialism! To call it a 'war' is to completely revise history. There has rarely been any colonialized nation without an insurgency. Did we call Northern Ireland's "troubles" a 'war'? When the native people of Africa rebelled against European colonialism, was it called 'war'?


At the same time, I regard both the invasion (and occupation) of Afghanistan and the invasion (and occupation) of Iraq as illegal wars - crimes against peace, in Nuremberg terms. We're an outlaw nation. That's also above and beyond the fact that no Constitutionally-mandated Declaration of War was enacted. Even if Congress had declared war in both instances, they'd still be crimes against peace! The fact that they didn't merely compounds the criminality of this regime.

[WinkyDink]

28. We are NOT AT WAR!! We have INVADED and BOMBED a peaceful nation,

UNPROVOKED!
I guess that's what Hitler said, after invading Poland! "We are at war with Poland."

Yes, we have soldiers there, and weapons, and we have looted their Treasury and museums....but that doesn't equal "war"!
It EQUALS ILLEGAL AGGRESSION and MURDER.

Are we at WAR with IRAQIS?? I thought we were there to LIBERATE them! To bring them DEMOCRACY!
Or...to DEFEAT them? WHICH is it??

[Warren Stupidity]

68. Well yes but..

Congress could have, at the request of the administration, declared war against Iraq. There is nothing in the constitution that says that we can't have unprovoked wars of aggression. Then Bush could legitimately make a claim that somehow the constitution grants him powers that supersede both the constitution and specific legislation due to the state of war. The argument would continue to be false, at least as determined by the USSC in the cases involving Lincoln and Roosevelt, but it would not be patently false due to the obvious lack of the basis for the premise of the argument.

[SPKrazy]

30. "There is a war going on"

Yes, a civil war in Iraq

a global hunt for terrorists that is a police action

and our boys and girls are being killed every day because they are sitting ducks in the middle of a civil war in Iraq.

We aren't at war in the sense of a declaration of war, or any country to wage it with.

[flyarm]

38. war was never declared! and can only be declared by congress!

read the constitution...its all there..

a resolution was signed by congress but not a declaration of war...

end of story..

fly

[Beelzebud]

43. There is killing going on. No war.

For something to be considered a war, there has to be at least TWO armies fighting. --Bill Hicks.

[DoYouEverWonder]

51. The do you have a link

to a 'Declaration of War' issued by either Congress of the President?

[FreedomAngel82]

59. Only Congress can declare war and THEY NEVER HAVE!

Just because people are fighting and dying does NOT mean you're at a war. It's a slaughter pure and simple. The Constitution is damn clear about that! Please tell me when did Congress ever give the authority to go to war!

[Mr_Spock]

61. I'm "Hooked on a Feeling" - can you be at war with a feeling - "Terror"

I don't think so!!

Iraq was declared "Mission Accomplished" a couple of years ago, so that is just a policing action now, therefore;

WE ARE NOT AT WAR

Don't be so gullible.

[in_cog_ni_to]

70. There has been NO DECLARATION OF WAR .

We aren't at war. We are "fighting terrorism." So, let us just say that the idiot withdrws the troops from Iraq. They come home, but the war on terra continues around the globe and here at home...are we still "at war?" NO. That's the difference. The IWR was not a "Declaration of War" it was a resolution to give the idiot the power to fight terrorism. There IS a difference.

[liveoaktx]

42. VIDEO

On CanOFun

[Marleyb]

46. War or no War- Bush cannot just attack another nation

and then because of that illegal action state that he can now do any and all other illegal actions.

So now any president who wants absolute power can just attack another nation?

[tabasco]

49. Not at war?!? How can you say that?

Don't you know the American People are sacrificing on a daily basis by keeping their "Support The Troops" bumper stickers on their cars? Haven't you seen the lines of young republicans at the recruiter's station waiting to sign up for combat to win this war??
Haven't you seen the President grieving at all those military funerals he attends?? Don't you know about the Islamic armies that are ready to hit our beaches if we lose the war? Don't you know about all the dangerous and deadly WMDs that we captured in Iraq? Didn't you realize that the planes that attacked us on 9-11 were full of Iraqis??

:sarcasm:

[spanone]

2. I heard that. Daschle & Harmon just sat there. Pathetic.

[jerryster]

3. I saw it

Do you agree? And are you as disappointed with the responses from Daschle and Harmon as I am?

[sallyseven]

8. Yes i am but that is why they were on

they are ineffective. Timmy loves those kind of people.

[kurth]

4. The President is above Congress?

What kind of banana republic do we live in? Roberts doesn't deserve to be in the Senate.

[NYC Liberal]

5. "Roosevelt did it too."

By that logic, I should be able to commit ANY crime so long as I can find someone ELSE who committed it too and got away with it!

[Kber]

24. Maybe we should round up all Arabs, Persians and Muslims

and put them into internment camps. Afterall, Roosevelt did it too.

:sarsasm:

[timtom]

55. Careful...

They just might do that yet.

[NYC Liberal]

67. You kid, but there are people who do want that to happen.

Or just kill them all. Really.

[C_U_L8R]

7. Roberts needs to take a handful of those pills

Senile old bat can't remember right from wrong

[librechik]

17. Roberts has a prescription for "memory pills?" Should he be in charge?

of anything?

[SPKrazy]

34. Seriously, If He Is Taking Aricept, Then He Must Have A Dementia

or some serious cognitive deficits and he is chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee?

Whoa, there should be some standards set for that.

[Solly Mack]

9. and Roosevelt was wrong. Each and every President who has

used the justification that a President has some special powers during a time of war to piss on the Constitution has been wrong.

They were ALL wrong.

And frankly, should have been held accountable for their actions.

Bush is counting on the fact that no other President was held accountable for criminal abuse of the Constitution.

Instead of being afraid to address that FDR and other Presidents were wrong, we should be out front with it. They were wrong - and so is Bush. No, we didn't do what we should have done and hold those Presidents accountable - but it's way beyond time to hold a President accountable.

No time like the present to start getting it right.

If we don't hold Bush accountable - we WILL continue to get Presidents that think they are above the law.

[TankLV]

11. Yes we DID hold FDR and other presidents accountable.

Go back in read your history, don't believe all the repuke spin.

The REPUKE congress at the time DENIED a lot of the actions that FDR first took, and REIGNED HIM IN by negating the things he did from the lend-lease program to assist the British before we entered the war to trying to change the Supreme Court.

Stop take what LIES the repukes are throwing out there in hopes they will stick, like that fucking LIAR Roberts!

[Solly Mack]

13. Really? How was Roosevelt held accountable for internment camps?

How exactly? I don't recall reading where any action was taken against FDR for those. But I'm sure YOU will point me to where FDR was held accountable for them.

I'll be waiting to see what you come up with. Since I'm a liar for saying he wasn't held accountable for them. Prove me a liar. Show me where he was held accountable.

Show me where Wilson was held accountable for his "sedition" bullshit?

LMAO - being denied certain legislation is NOT being "held accountable"

You do know that don't you?

I certainly hope so.

The first step in "fixing" America starts with not being a hypocrite.

This isn't a "party" issue - This is about the country. Country BEFORE party.

[TankLV]

15. By congress. CONGRESS approved of it.

[Solly Mack]

22. and Congress approved the Patriot Act, yes?

[Warren Stupidity]

29. which act, despite being odious

does not make torture or indefinite detention or domestic monitoring of us persons legal.

[Solly Mack]

32. No fucking shit, Sherlock

Care to point where I say it does?

Since you can't - I'll let that pass

but the point remains - instead of getting panties in a wad over some republican saying "Roosevelt did it" - just look them straight in the eye and say "Roosevelt was wrong and so is Bush"

[TankLV]

57. Yes it did, and I totally agree that both were contemptable acts.

But it proves my point that what FDR tried to do was either reighned in or officiall approved - nothing was "illegal" or against the laws in the end, unlike the repukes are constantly caught at doing.

Now, we can discuss all day all the reprehensible things that the US has officially done that we all find abhorent, from Lincoln's attempts to suspend the constitution - which was severly rebuked and OVERTURNED, to Johnson's subterfuge during Vietnam.

[Solly Mack]

63. Hitler's acts were "officially approved" as well

if we want to talk about "legal" (as defined by what Congress or any governing body "approved")- Congress approving something doesn't make it right being the point there. As we all well know.

The other point is, Roosevelt was wrong to intern people - that shouldn't be hard for anyone to admit. In fact, I'm appalled that anyone would have a problem admitting that the camps were wrong.


So when a republican makes the claim "Roosevelt did it" in an attempt to justify Bush's crimes - just tell that republican that Roosevelt was wrong and so is Bush.


Roosevelt is not some sacred cow. The only reason republicans can rile Democrats up with him is because of the "sacred cow" mentality. Roosevelt interned citizens for NO reason - and he violated the Constitution to do it - and anyone in Congress agreeing with Roosevelt on the camps was wrong as well and they too went against the Constitution

Ask yourself why republicans bring up Roosevelt to begin with...because Roosevelt wasn't held accountable for the camps - he was not charged with violating the Constitution - he was not held accountable for breaking his oath to the Constitution - and the excuse is "it was war" - the exact same lie Bush is using - that war means a President can do anything and get away with it. Even if FDR had not died in office, it's highly doubtful he would have had to answer for the camps. Well, I can't say with any certainty that he would have been.

So when a republican brings up Roosevelt - just tell that republican that the courts ruled the camps unconstitutional...because they were unconstitutional.

[LostinVA]

20. Congress approved it, the SC upheld some of it

Until they finally overturned the camps as being unconstitutional.

[Solly Mack]

25. Yes - after the fact. But FDR was never held accountable

[Warren Stupidity]

31. true, never the less the courts have ruled

and using Roosevelt's illegal unconstitutional detention of japanese americans as supporting evidence for the legality of Bush's crimes is absurd. It proves just the opposite.

[Solly Mack]

35. Exactly! Roosevelt was wrong. Bush is wrong. Just because Roosevelt did it

doesn't justify what Bush is doing - because Roosevelt was wrong.

So instead of getting outraged when a republican says "Roosevelt did it" - Tell them " The courts ruled that Roosevelt was wrong"

[HamdenRice]

47. It is easy to show how the US was accountable for internment ...

You are confusing holding FDR personally responsible and holding the US govt responsible.

The US govt admitted that the internment of Japanese Americans was wrong and pursuant to an act of Congress paid restitution to each interned person. FDR was an agent of the US government, so the government, not FDR, was held responsible.

[Solly Mack]

56. and that's all we ever get isn't it? Well after the fact, when the harm

is already done - when nothing can be done - the government is "big" enough to admit they were wrong - and here, take this money to make it all better.

So I guess that means after Bush is out of office, "government" will be held responsible by the exact same govt. admitting they were wrong(again) - no criminal charges for the "agents of govt." - just government writing a few words about how wrong all of it was and then throw money at the victims. I bet they even promise to do better next time...and use phrases like "Never again!"

Then America moves along thinking they've actually accomplished anything. Thinking that's "justice"

...until the next time...when the exact same shit starts all over again..and people exclaim "How did we ever get into this mess?"

Well, gee, maybe it's because being held accountable only means having to say you were wrong and tossing a few dollars at the victims. How wonderful it is to have a government held "accountable" that says "Gee, we were sure wrong to arrest you for nothing, detain you for nothing, and steal your homes - but here, take this money to make it all better"

WOW! Now that's accountability!!

If saying you were wrong is considered "accountability", then that's a sorry state of affairs. And I seriously doubt the confusion is on my part.

Bush, as President, is also an "agent of government", no? - then all government has to do to make the crimes of Bush right is to say "we were wrong, here's some cash"???????

and that will count as "accountability"?????

NO!!!!! Bush, his entire regime, and all enablers should be tried for their crimes. Then government will have been held accountable. Only then. And maybe, just maybe, the next time a President will think twice before claiming they have special powers to do whatever they want to do.

[Daphne08]

14. "...We WILL continue to get Presidents that think they are

above the law."

You are exactly right, and this should worry every American whether they be Republican, Democrat, Independent or whatever.

[Solly Mack]

37. Thank you. Precisely. This is about the country - not a political party.

This is about putting the country and the people first - not a political party.

Attacks/Abuses on/of the Constitution are wrong - regardless of what party anyone belongs to...

[mmonk]

10. but mommy, everybody is doing it.

[librechik]

16. I know--this show is laying out starkly the key diff betw R and D

Republicans want their guy to have ultimate power over everybody (oh, but use it wisely, every prez has, snirk)

Democrats? What are Democrats?

[librechik]

21. Sen WTF: "These are not whistleblowers. Risen had a financial interest"

F you

They WENT through channels and were threatedned,

These guys are stupid, misinformed assholes, Bothe Roberts and Hoekstra. LIES AND SPIN!!!

[Rose Siding]

27. I'd like a peek at Roberts' portfolio- see about HIS financial interests

IOKIYAR

[malaise]

23. But there was no FISA Court in Rooseveldt's day

now was there? It's a spurious argument.
sp.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. Indeed

wiretapping was not itself illegal or considered covered by the 4th until long after ww-II. I assumed that the reference to Roosevelt was regarding illegal detentions of Japanese Americans, which the courts subsequently ruled was an illegal abuse of executive authority. Monitoring phones and telegraphs wasn't even a crime.

Here is agood timeline on wiretaps: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5061834

The USSC doesn't extend the 4th to wiretaps until 1967 Katz v US. Any wiretapping Roosevelt did was not illegal.

[WinkyDink]

33. The Dem response should be, re: FDR:

"Well, you like using FDR as an example, do you? How's THIS, then? Roosevelt believed in SOCIAL SECURITY, pal! Want to talk about MORE of his programs, huh? Bring it on!"

[acmavm]

40. We are not at war. And whatever it is, the 'Mission' was declared

accomplished (what a frigging joke) aboard an aircraft carrier by a lying fraud with socks stuffed down his pants.

[Beelzebud]

48. Show me what Police State looks like!

This is what police state looks like!

[madokie]

50. And so he thinks, I smell blood, and little boots is going down.

[mzmolly]

53. FISA was put in place after Nixon FOR A REASON.

!@#*

[FreedomAngel82]

58. Oh good grief!

:banghead: No he does not! And these people are Senators and they don't know the Constitution?! MY GOD! I CAN'T STAND THIS! :mad:

[Montagnard]

62. Kings may be judges of the earth,

but wise men are the judges of kings.

[paineinthearse]

64. "at time of war"? we are NOT at war!

I've said it 1000 times, Rep.Henry Waxman and many others have said it, too.

US troops are certainly deployed, but

we are NOT at war!

Show me the declaration.

[Rex]

71. This ain't the 1920s

Although we are heading for another global war and eco-economic disaster. Beware the Ides of March. We will need a political genius (like FDR) to fix the mess that will be left behind by Bush&Cheney.

Funny, I don't remember FDR rigging elections, starting wars (I really don't think he sat on intel about Pearl Harbor) demanding the same powers as Hitler, but I just teach history in HS, so what do I know?

[BurtWorm]

72. The difference between Roosevelt and Bush, Roberts,

is a lot like the difference between Roosevelt and slime mold.