"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Monday, March 13, 2006

CNN.com - Feingold to call for�rare presidential�censure - Mar 13, 2006

CNN.com - Feingold to call for�rare presidential�censure - Mar 13, 2006

Even though in the first paragraph it says Feingold said "the program is illegal," the article mentions this, "Feingold, a member of the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence committees, said a censure would "send a clear signal" that Bush's actions were "wrong."

So which is it? I'm sure Feingold put it this way, "a clear signal and it's wrong." But that doesn't mean it's illegal, does it. This is just a case of Feingold trying to make headlines about himself. He in so many words said so himself; "It's an unusual step, It's a big step, (only the bravest like Feingold can do it, right?) but what the president did by consciously and intentionally violating the Constitution and laws of this country with this illegal wiretapping has to be answered." Again, the has been no proof that this is illegal, only various pronouncements to that affect.

Mark Levin at his blog at National Review Online suggests censuring Feingold. According to Levin, "as it happens, there is no constitutional basis for Congress voting to censure a president, just as there is no constitutional basis for a president issuing a proclamation of censure against members of Congress."

He adds, "I know of nothing that Russ Feingold has proposed to make this nation safer from terrorists. He was the lone vote against the original Patriot Act and opposed recently renewing the watered down version. He opposes the president's exercise of his legitimate and traditional constitutional authority to intercept enemy communications during war. He opposes aggressive interrogation of al Qaeda terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay. In fact, there's no record of Feingold supporting any measure that would protect this country from another 9/11."

Ultimately, Levin feels that for all Feingold's talk about "civil liberties," Feingold has done more damage to the Bill of Rights with the McCain-Feingold Bill.

"If censure is such a cool idea, then perhaps it should be tried on Feingold. After all, if the standard is political disagreement, then he's fair game." I agree


© blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks