Motley Moose – Archive

Let us put aside for the moment that not only did most of you not have any qualms about such surveillance during the Bush Administration.  Let us also put aside that during those years you not only lacked any qualms, but also supported it and questioned anyone that disagreed with you over it.  Let us assume, for purposes of argument, that this is genuine concern rooted in privacy issues and not rooted in politics.

President Obama has made clear that members of Congress have been briefed on this issue.  Therefore, if you are truly concerned, and you truly believe that the public had a right to know what was happening, there is a simple solution that was available to you the moment you found out.  What is that solution?

Read everything you know about the surveillance programs into the Congressional Record.

This could be done through an actual speech on the floor of the House or the Senate.  This could be done through a speech in committee.  This could be done by moving to insert the full text of what you have into the Congressional Record.  There are all sorts of ways to do this and with its insertion it would enter the public domain.

Now you’re probably thinking that you could get in serious amounts of trouble, and go to prison for a long time, for what is effectively leaking highly classified information.  You couldn’t be more wrong.  See, that Constitution you claim to hold so dear, and you claim you know pretty much inside and out, protects you pretty much absolutely if you had chosen to go this route.  I direct your attention to Article I, Section 6, Clause 1:

Senators and Representatives…  for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

This is a grant of congressional immunity for your speeches in Congress and your insertions into the Congressional Record.  In fact, this is how Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) helped ensure that the Pentagon Papers would enter the public domain.  A subsequent case held that this protection also extends to congressional aides for conduct for which a representative or senator would be immune from prosecution.

So, there you have it Republicans.  If you were so concerned about this matter, and you truly believed that the public had the right to know, rather than just as part of an attempt to create a scandal, there was a way open for you to raise your concerns and inform the public.  This way was created in the Constitution and is now nearly 226 years old.  Furthermore, it has been used before.  With all the constitutional scholars you claim to have, I’m surprised you never thought of this before.

From the White House – Weekly Address

In this week’s address, President Obama says that the economy is moving in the right direction, but there is still more work to do. He calls on Congress to act to give every responsible homeowner the chance to save money on their mortgage by refinancing at historically low interest rates, put more Americans to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, and fix our broken immigration system, so that we can continue to grow our economy and create good middle class jobs.  

First, let’s start with what the Constitution defines as offenses warranting impeachment and removal from office.  Those can be found in Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Treason and bribery are pretty straightforward, but what, exactly, constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors.  Here’s what former House Minority Leader (and former president) Gerald Ford (R-Michigan) said about them:

An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office.

This morning in the New York Times, former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords wrote an op-ed about the cowardly action of the U.S. Senate in defeating the amendment promoted in this video:

Gabrielle Giffords: “A Senate in the Gun Lobby’s Grip”

SENATORS say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them.

On Wednesday, a minority of senators gave into fear and blocked common-sense legislation that would have made it harder for criminals and people with dangerous mental illnesses to get hold of deadly firearms – a bill that could prevent future tragedies like those in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., and too many communities to count.

… if we cannot make our communities safer with the Congress we have now, we will use every means available to make sure we have a different Congress, one that puts communities’ interests ahead of the gun lobby’s.

Let’s join her and let’s make them fear the wrath of the voters. There is really no excuse for voting against the wishes of 90% of Americans.  

Do we elect them to fight the good fight, come up short and, in the end do absolutely nothing?  No.

We elect them to get stuff done, even if it is only “any sort of line they can sign no matter how minuscule.”

We don’t live in a dictatorship where President Obama can sign executive order after executive order and allocate money and resources and make laws.  We live in a federal republic where power is split between the federal and state governments and where within each of those governments power is further split between the various branches.  Given that the Republicans currently control the House, that means some Republicans must vote for any piece of legislation before it can even reach President Obama’s desk.

Yes, there are certain things President Obama can get done with executive orders, but not the heavy lifting.  He cannot unilaterally raise taxes.  He cannot unilaterally reallocate funds from one line in the budget to another.  He cannot unilaterally raise or cut spending.  Similarly, he cannot change immigration rules; he can only direct the relevant agencies to exercise prosecutorial discretion, an action easily reversed by his successors in the absence of legislation.

This came up in a local column today.  

Capitol police call citizen

Elise Lazar, who lives in Salt Lake County, called Sen. Orrin Hatch’s Salt Lake City office March 25 to inquire if the senator would be in town over spring break and if he scheduled any town hall meetings.

The receptionist asked why she would want to know that. Lazar said she had concerns on certain issues that she would like to discuss with him and she had friends who might want to attend the meeting as well.

Ms. Lazar was contacted by Capitol Police.  

But the next day Lazar received a call on her cell phone from the Capitol Hill Police in Washington, D.C., telling her they had received a complaint about her from Hatch’s office and that they felt she might be a suspicious person.

My new representative is Chris Stewart, who seems to the right of Glenn Beck.  How do I make my voice heard?  

Crossposted from the Forward on Climate blogathon at Daily Kos. There is a schedule of diaries and info about the blogathon at the end of the DK diary.

This week, we’ve had an impressive crop of diaries about the Keystone XL project — an pipeline that hooks us more deeply into one of the more damaging fossil fuel extractions we’ve ever seen. Selling oil from the tar sands promises to make Canada a player in the fossil fuel game…

Margaret Atwood, a Canadian, who recently observed that Canadians with The Tar Sands are Hobbits with The Ring. All of the riches in the world belong to he who holds that power. What Canada decides to do with the tar sands will affect energy policy for most of the next century.

With that against all of us — we who want to slow the rate we are pulling carbon out of the ground and putting it into the sky — there are few things we can control directly about Canada’s decision to mine the tar sands. What we can do is address the horse apples. Slowing the process enough could grind it to a halt. Slowing the process will have an impact.

For today’s horse apple, let’s have a few words about what happens when we try to regulate novel energy technology.

I fear I have been naive, for I have thought that the behaviors of our Congress (specifically, the Republicans therein) had hit rock bottom, that the limit of asshattery has been reached. Not so! Today’s Senate shenanigans over Chuck Hagel’s nomination may have been the straw that broke this weary old camel’s back. Seeking relief in humor, I have compiled a brief list of unflattering remarks about our legislative branch by famous people. Please add as you see fit.

Note: I don’t have strong feelings about Hagel one way or the other. I do have strong feelings about dysfunctionality.

Have you been feeling fearful these days, as though the world has become a much more dangerous place, almost overnight? You’re not alone. Keeping populations in a state of heightened fear and dread is big business these days, and everyone wants a piece of the action.

Corporations who live and die by short-term financial metrics, want to find ways to grind out more profit per employee.  In a challenging economy, continuing layoffs and cuts to hours and benefits and ambiguous corporate communications keep employees from seeking raises or better assignments. Nobody wants to speak up about dangerous or illegal working conditions or crushing demands. Everyone’s just trying to “stay below the radar” and avoid being the next casualty.

Congress, where elected officials pledge their loyalty to the NRA, Grover Norquist, political caucuses, and the corporations that funded their election and re-election, is another bastion of fear-mongering. Truth in advertising suggests that instead of business suits, Congress-critters be forced to wear NASCAR-like jumpsuits with patches denoting each of their sponsors. But… I digress.  Congress likes to focus on vague fears like The Deficit That Will Force Your Grandkids into Economic Slavery, while the obvious, in-your-face fears like Climate Change Which Spawned the Superstorm That Washed Away Part of the Country go largely unremarked upon.  When Americans can be frightened by the looming perils of complicated issues, it’s so much easier to strip them of their freedoms and rob them blind.

Advertisers, always early adopters of any new revenue streams, have launched campaigns suggesting that “you may be eligible for [insert worthless scam here]”, drawing you in to learn about dreadful things that might happen.  Your car might break down. Your identity might be stolen. You might lose out on all life’s possibilities due to low testosterone. If you act now, and part with your hard-earned dollars, you might be able to forestall these apocalyptic outcomes… but only if you’re among our first 25 callers.  

Hillary Clinton is no stranger to Republican animosity. She has arguably endured harsher and more frequent criticism from the Right, over a lengthier period of time, than any other modern public figure. She is also no amateur when it comes to navigating her way through Congressional hearings. She has always been proficient at holding her head high in the face of controversy, whether or not any of the “fault” for such turmoil truly rested on her shoulders. After months of vilifying the Obama administration and demonizing Clinton over the Benghazi terror attacks, Republicans have been eagerly awaiting the opportunity to theatrically grill her in front of plenty of cameras. When her testimony on Benghazi was briefly delayed due to illness, she was accused of faking it to avoid facing Congress.  One can’t help but wonder whether these buffoons are suffering from concussions of their own.