| Dear Democratic Senators,
I had been hoping you were all aware of the actual effects of the FISA bill, but I am now somewhat upset to be hearing creative "reasoning" going on amongst you all regarding the upcoming vote on this embarrassing piece of legislation.
Now, it seems (to me) appropriate, since you are actually working for the "people" (a gentle reminder if you will), for me, one of those "people", to offer you some advice and counsel concerning the FISA vote set to take place this week in the Senate.
First, a quick refresher for you on the 4th Amendment of our Bill of Rights, which is located (in case you've forgotten) in our beloved Constitution. The text of it reads as follows:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No Warrants. None. The new FISA bill allows for warrantless wiretaps to be utilized with only the approval of the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence and only stipulates that they have "reasonable belief" that the person being tapped is outside the United States. Two people. Who work for one Administration. I think we all can imagine what "reasonable belief" means in the current Administration; especially in light of their high level of veracity. Not. Why we would give any Administration this kind of power with such little oversight is beyond me.
In addition, and I was hoping that you knew this, but the current FISA law already provides enough to facilitate any surveillance, foreign or domestic, that the government would need. And it's constitutional to boot. With the current FISA law, the government does have to get a warrant, but they can get it from the FISA Court which deals specifically with classified and sensitive cases. Further, the government can even start surveillance in an emergency and obtain the warrant retroactively; all they have to do is apply for the warrant within 72 hours of beginning surveillance. Regardless of new technology, the above provides for the need to move quickly, and the FISA Court was not designed to move slowly either.
The retroactive immunity for the telecom companies also bewilders me; it appears on its face to be an ex post facto measure. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that in and of itself, unconstitutional? Oh yes, it is, according to Article I, Section 9 of our Constitution, which states:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Of course, this is the same section of the Constitution that contains the Writ of Habeas Corpus, so we already know that you probably skipped that section entirely, that is, if you studied the Constitution at all. (The SCOTUS had to overturn your idiocy on that one.)
So, now that I've outlined what many of us, the "people", know about the FISA bill, I have some suggestions for you to enable you to stop this shredding of our Constitution.
In order to stop the FISA bill here are some options for you:
First, you can object to the bill even being brought up to the Floor. For legislative purposes:
Whenever possible, therefore, the majority leader instead calls up bills and resolutions by unanimous consent. If Senators object to unanimous consent to take up a measure, they are implicitly threatening to filibuster a motion to consider it. They may do so because they oppose that measure, or in the hope of influencing action on some other matter.
Unanimous consent. That means all of you must consent. This also means that it only takes one of you to stop it. Granted, it may not make you popular with your peers, but this isn't the time (or issue for that matter) for popularity and politicking, this is the time to save the Constitution and the Country by extension.
If unanimous consent doesn't tickle your fancy, how about placing a hold on the bill?
Senators can even place a "hold" on a measure or nomination, although this practice is not recognized in Senate rules. "Holds" are requests by Senators to their party's floor leader to object on their behalf to any request to consider a matter, at least until they have been consulted. The majority leader will usually not even request consent to consider a measure if there is a hold on it.
If several of you were to publicly request a hold on the bill, it would be much more controversial for Harry Reid to bring it to the Floor as it would be flying in the face of this common Senate practice. It would (and this is for you Harry) provide the Democratic Senators who are in election situations with some cover: "Couldn't vote on it - a hold prevented it from even coming to the Floor."
If these things fail and there are not enough of you for a filibuster, here's one more option. This one would admittedly take quite a bit of ingenuity (and to be honest, we're not at all sure any of you actually have any ingenuity), but any of you could offer an amendment, and unlike in the House, that amendment does not have to be germane; it can have to do with anything.
Finally, Senate rules do not require that amendments be germane or relevant, except to general appropriation bills, budget measures, and matters under cloture (and a few other bills, pursuant to statutes). Consequently, if a committee fails to report a measure, a Senator may offer its text as an amendment to any other measure under consideration, without regard to the scheduling preferences of the majority leader.
Attach something that Democrats like and Bushlicans would have a hard time voting for - something that would almost guarantee a Bush veto. Timetables perhaps? Basically, this is saying "well, if ya want capitulation, here's your g^*damn capitulation jacka$$." As there is no line item veto, BushCo would almost surely have to veto the bill. I know there is little hope for this option to be used, let alone survive Conference, but I figured I'd put it out there; you Democrats in the Senate look like you could use all the suggestions you can get.
So, guys and gals in the Senate, instead of giving BushCo what it wants this time and living up to what is becoming the historical name for you - The Capitulation Congress, why don't you all cowboy up and make us proud to have you representing us. We will remember and appreciate those of you who stood up for the preservation of our Constitution.
For those of us the "people" who would like to let your Senator know how you feel about the FISA bill, here is the link to the contact info for all the Senators.
For those of you still stewing about your Representatives in the House, here is the link for how they voted last week on the FISA bill, and the state by state links to their contact info.
|
