Will Obama do the right thing and veto this travesty of a bill?

[MadHound]

Or will he continue to implement Bush era violations of our basic rights, encoding them into law like he did with the NDAA?

"The US Senate on Friday voted to reauthorize the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, a spying bill that critics say violates the Fourth Amendment and gives vast, unchecked surveillance authority to the government.

The move extends powers of the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance of Americans’ international emails and phone calls.

The FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act (H.R. 5949), passed on a 73-23 vote.

“It’s a tragic irony that FISA, once passed to protect Americans from warrantless government surveillance, has mutated into its polar opposite due to the FISA Amendments Act,” said Michelle Richardson, legislative counsel at the ACLU. “The Bush administration’s program of warrantless wiretapping, once considered a radical threat to the Fourth Amendment, has become institutionalized for another five years.”
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/12/28

First of all, shame on the Democrats who voted for this bill, and there were plenty of them who did, including Missouri's own Claire McCaskill, along with Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, and others.

But the real question is whether Obama will sign this bill into law, or do the right thing and veto it. Yes, yes, I know, as the Senate vote stands, it won't matter if he vetoes the bill, since it passed the Senate with supermajority numbers. But it does matter, in two very important ways. First, if he vetoes it, sends a strong message that he disagrees with it, then it could very well swing many of those Democrats who did vote for it towards upholding the veto.

Second, and most importantly, a presidential veto would show the country that he disapproves of these unconstitutional measures that are stripping we the people of our basic rights. Such a message would resonate in his upcoming second term, as more and more of these Bush era policies are codified into law.

Sadly, judging by Obama's past record, he isn't going to send such a message. Rather, he will, much as he did with his support of the NDAA, send a message loud and clear that he doesn't give a rat's ass about our Constitutional rights, and that he completely willing to trample all over them.

A sad day, truly. Watching our Constitution shredded bit by bit in a bipartisan frenzy.

[Buzz Clik]

1. I fear he will sign it.

[leveymg]

51. He voted for it as Sen. Obama in 2008. Why not sign its reauthorization as President?

It's not one of my favorite things about him.

[spanone]

2. whoops ...found it....

[kelly1mm]

3. Does ANY executive branch head (the President) give up power given to the executive branch

by congress willingly? I can't think of the last time that happened. Usually, if congress attempts taking the power back there is a major shitstorm of a fight from the executive branch (of either party).

[cui bono]

9. I actually believe that Kucinich would have given up executive power if elected.

I truly believe he would have done the right thing.

Unfortunately, Obama has already shown he won't do it based on his current actions and policies.

[rhett o rick]

27. Well put. nm

[Enrique]

4. absolutely out of the question

he is 100% behind this legislation, he actively opposed all the amendments to weaken it.

[LukeFL]

33. He is okay to do it- you have all

Forgotten people out there REALLY HATES US

[CranialRectaLoopback]

52. Snark, right?

[Catherina]

5. Nope. Please take a trip down memory lane

June 2008: Obama Supports FISA Legislation, Angering Left: "substantive break with Party's base"


I think you'll find the answer there.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

6. In addition to Harry Reid, John Kerry, and Whitehouse, which Democrats voted for this? Here's a list

Bennet (D, CO)
Blumenthal (D, CT)
Cardin (D, MD)
Carper (D, DE)
Casey (D, PA)
Conrad (D, ND)
Feinstein (D, CA)
Gillibrand (D, NY)
Hagan (D, NC)
Johnson (D, SD)
Klobuchar (D, MN)
Kohl (D, WI)
Landrieu (D, LA)
Levin (D, MI)
Manchin (D, WV)
McCaskill (D, MO)
Mikulski (D, MD)
Bill Nelson (D, FL)
Ben Nelson (D, NE)
Pryor (D, AR)
John Reed (D, RI)
Rockefeller (D, WV)
Schumer (D, NY)
Shaheen (D, NH)
Stabenow (D, MI)
Warner (D, VA)
Webb (D, VA)

http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/sublist/10562?party=Democrat&vote=Aye

[cui bono]

10. Feinstein... Ugh. Good on Boxer though.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

15. Boxer abstained.

http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/sublist/10562?party=Democrat&vote=Abstain

[ProSense]

21. One of my Senators,

Menendez, voted against it. I guess that makes up for voting for the torture bill.

My other Senator, Lautenberg, did not vote.

[Oilwellian]

71. These same so-called Democratic senators...

will also vote to cut Social Security. Mark it.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

72. Yes. Now it's an issue of "How much" for the first go around.

From now on, cutting Social Security and means-testing it will always be on the negotiating tables.

[arely staircase]

7. so why did you vote for him?

eom

[cui bono]

11. You'd rather we vote for Romney? What a childish post.

Come on, you know that's a stupid question and only meant to stir up trouble. Grow up and discuss the issue or keep it to yourself.

I take it you can't stand it when someone criticizes Obama? Well do you really think he doesn't deserve it for this? Or are you okay with the government spying on its own citizens without a warrant? Are you really?

[arely staircase]

17. i wasn't talking to you

but rather madhound. who has yet to respond.

[rhett o rick]

23. With due respect, that's another childish post. nm

[cui bono]

26. Doesn't change that it was completely childish. Plus...

this is a message board, that's how discussions work on here. Posts are able to be read and responded to by everyone. If you wanted it to be a private conversation you could have pm'd Mad.

Also, your retort is equally as childish as the other post. Seriously, this board is supposed to be about meaningful discussion, not elementary school playground retorts.

Still curious if you agree with our government spying on its own citizens without a warrant. Do you?

[rhett o rick]

30. I would be surprised to see a legitimate response. nm

[arely staircase]

36. i am still waiting on one

i would like to know why the poster voted for obama but clearly despises him.

[rhett o rick]

41. You know neither and your implication appears to be just an attempt at being disruptive.

I am guessing that you wont tell us whether you support the legislation or not. You arent here to discuss issues are you?

[arely staircase]

42. no i do not support it

now i'd like to know why mh voted for obama.

[rhett o rick]

45. Probably because he is a million times better than the other guy. nm

[arely staircase]

47. we can only speculate

since the question goes unanswered.

[Luminous Animal]

46. You don't support it, eh? And when Obama signs it, I hope you will be ready to explain

why you voted for him.

[arely staircase]

48. i am not a single issue voter

i judge the candidates based on a comparison of their stands on all the issues. i fully expect him to sign it. i will disagree with him and continue to support him.

[cui bono]

54. You don't support it, so why then did you vote for Obama?

Could be the exact same reason Mad did.

You said in another post that you think that Mad simply despises (I don't know if I'm recalling the exact word you used but it was something to that effect) Obama and want to know why s/he voted for Obama. Where do you see this? I see a post that expresses deep concern over a particular piece of legislation and a desire for Obama to veto it and worry that he inevitably will not.

Where do you see this emotional feeling about Obama in that post that you reference?

[arely staircase]

55. i have answered that

post 48

[cui bono]

57. Yes you have. In another post and not directly to me.

So perhaps Mad has answered your question elsewhere as well? Just a thought. Have you searched?

[arely staircase]

58. link?

eom

[arely staircase]

49. you should alert on my post if you think it is so disruptive

i can take it. if it gets hidden it'll be my first in over a year, so go for it.

[rhett o rick]

60. Please just leave me alone. nm

[arely staircase]

61. you call me childish then want to be left alone? lol

put me on ignore then. that way you can't see me but i can still see you.

[arely staircase]

37. your concern is noted nt

[rhett o rick]

19. Your very short post, void of any coherent argument, seems to suggest that since we voted for him

we must accept whatever decisions he makes. Is that correct? If so you arent very familiar with Democrats are you?

[Marr]

50. Incredible. BEFORE the election, you say, 'shut-up about your pony and get in line'.

AFTER the election, you say, 'you voted for him, so shut-up and get in line'.

Can you see why so many people seem to dislike the 'fan club' contingent? Your only real position seems to be "everyone shut-up and clap".

[limpyhobbler]

64. lame

[AnotherMcIntosh]

8. In addition to Al Franken, Leahy, Wyden, Harkin, and Durbin (*), who voted against it?

Akaka (D, HI)
Baucus (D, MT)
Begich (D, AK)
Bingaman (D, NM)
Brown (D, OH)
Cantwell (D, WA)
Coons (D, DE)
Menéndez (D, NJ)
Merkley (D, OR)
Murray (D, WA)
Schatz (D, HI)
Tester (D, MT)
Mark Udall (D, CO)
Tom Udall (D, NM)

http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/sublist/10562?party=Democrat&vote=Nay

(On the final roll call, Durbin voted against the Bill. No research was done to determine if he voted against amendments which would have weakened it.)

[cui bono]

12. Hey, wait a minute.... Boxer's not on either list. Hm...

[AnotherMcIntosh]

14. Boxer abstained, as did Lautenberg.

http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/sublist/10562?party=Democrat&vote=Abstain

[cui bono]

16. Thank you. That's just as bad as voting for it imho.

What is wrong with these people?

Next on the list really has to be election reform. If money keeps buying elections the people will simply never be represented.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

63. Agreed. Abstention = did not oppose.

[rhett o rick]

20. I am glad to see the great state of Washington was well represented. nm

[Poll_Blind]

13. He won't veto it and he won't even issue a signing statement.

You can bank on it. This is all Obama. This is how he rolls.

PB

[ProSense]

18. No, but

"Will Obama do the right thing and veto this travesty of a bill?"

...why did you expect him to: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2091816

Was the OP a rhetorical question?

Still, this is another case of waiting on Obama. Everyone knew where he stood. It would have been better to push members of Congress to reject this bill or to support the amendments.

[rhett o rick]

22. So you are saying that Pres Obama wont do the right thing but it isnt his fault?

"It would have been better to push members of Congress to reject this bill or to support the amendments." The implication being that it's our fault for not "pushing" Congress. Some of us pushed Congress (Both my Senators voted against it) and are now pushing the president.

The fact that Congress has a lot of responsibility does not diminish the President's responsibility.

[ProSense]

24. No, I'm saying

"So you are saying that Pres Obama wont do the right thing but it isnt his fault?"

...why the fuck would someone expect him to veto a bill he supports?

"The fact that Congress has a lot of responsibility does not diminish the President's responsibility. "

The brilliance is astounding.

[cui bono]

28. So do you think it's okay that Obama supports this bill?

I'm not sure what your point is. Obama is just as responsible for this bill as is Congress. If I pushed Feinstein to not vote for it when she supported it then by your logic that's as silly as wanting Obama to not sign it since they both support it. So following that line of thought, it's simply useless for us to be active and want to sway any of our legislators/president's actions at all since there is no reason for us to expect them to change their position, no matter what we say.

As to your "brilliance" comment, it's just nonsensical. There was nothing incorrect with the statement you quoted.

[ProSense]

38. No, but

"So do you think it's okay that Obama supports this bill?"

...are you surprised that he isn't going to veto it?

"If I pushed Feinstein to not vote for it when she supported it then by your logic that's as silly as wanting Obama to not sign it since they both support it. "

If? "Wanting Obama not to sign it" isn't pushing, it's wishing. The OP asked a question about the President vetoing a bill he supports and has given no indication that he plans to veto. Did you see a link or a number in the OP directing people to call the WH to ask him to veto the bill?

From the OP:

Sadly, judging by Obama's past record, he isn't going to send such a message. Rather, he will, much as he did with his support of the NDAA, send a message loud and clear that he doesn't give a rat's ass about our Constitutional rights, and that he completely willing to trample all over them.

This isn't about pushing for "Obama to not sign it." It's resignation.

"As to your 'brilliance' comment, it's just nonsensical. There was nothing incorrect with the statement you quoted."

Really? Where did I say the statement was "incorrect"?

[cui bono]

56. But there's still time to push Obama to veto it.

I got that you were the one resigned from your post. Perhaps I misunderstood. My feeling is that even if he supports it we should still voice our opinion to him. I doubt he'll listen, he offered SS cuts even though the polls clearly show people are against that, but it has to be done.

And I took your comment about "brilliance" to be sarcasm which would imply that you were making fun of it. So you really thought it was brilliant?

[ProSense]

68. Well, you

"But there's still time to push Obama to veto it...I doubt he'll listen"

...start pushing. Like I said, I didn't see a link or a number in the OP directing people to call the WH to ask the President to veto the bill.

Statement of Administration Policy: FISA and NDAA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022092402

I know he has no intention of vetoing it, and I'm not surprised.

[ProSense]

69. Petition: Repeal the unconstitutional NDAA and FISA

Repeal the unconstitutional NDAA and FISA which allow intelligence agencies to secretly spy on US Citizens!
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/repeal-unconstitutional-ndaa-and-fisa-which-allow-intelligence-agencies-secretly-spy-us-citizens/4Nq6X6hV

[rhett o rick]

32. You seem

"The brilliance is astounding"

to be resorting to snark more and more.

[ProSense]

40. Why not?

"You seem...to be resorting to snark more and more."

I mean, if it wasn't clear in plain English that the point was that no one should be surprised that the President isn't going to veto a bill that he supports, why shouldn't snark follow?

Chuckle!

[rhett o rick]

44. Snark away. It just didnt sound like you is all. nm

[forestpath]

25. To even have to ask the question is to answer it.

[Autumn]

29. No, he will sign it and it will go in

his list of victories. Of course, it does suck for us.

[99Forever]

31. He'll sign it, just like he has a number of...

... really shitty bills. By now, he only surprise to me, would be if he didn't sign every POS that comes across his desk.

It IS who he is.

[Jim Lane]

34. I can see only one scenario in which Obama vetoes the bill.

Lawyers in the executive branch review the fine print and discover that there's a provision, previously overlooked by the media and by legislative leaders, that's ambiguous enough that it might be interpreted as offering some limited protection to our Constitutional rights.

In that event, he might veto the bill, with a message asking Congress to pass a revised version that's even more obnoxious.

And, yes, I voted for him, and, yes, I did so knowing full well that he would continue his support for some despicable policies like this one.

[KG]

35. don't you emo-progs get it? whatever he does, is the right thing...

[arely staircase]

39. what is an emo prog?

the .0001 percent of liberals that didn't vote for obama?

[great white snark]

53. A name they think they are called because of a persecution complex.

Seems one symptom is to use straw men (everything Obama does is right).

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. No. He's got to burnish his "tough on terra'" creds. He's a politican first and foremost.

Politicians fear the "soft" label when it comes to bogeymen.

[green for victory]

59. He needs to do these things to be re-elected

wait...

[shintao]

62. Problem is an infected congress

Mr. SMITH of Texas (for himself, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, and Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California) introduced the following bill; H. R. 5949 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 15, 2012 House vote: 301 yea, 118 nay

Name names & vote them out of office.

[limpyhobbler]

65. He has to sign it because he is already using the spying powers.

If the super snooping powers expire it will turn Obama into a criminal.

This will continue to be the case forever. Therefore the gummints super snoop spying laws are here to stay forever.

[Poll_Blind]

66. The interesting thing will be the crowing, the absolute CROWING the next...

...time a Republican president takes power- and all those powers with it.

Never seen so many, so happy to slip a noose around their own necks.

PB

[limpyhobbler]

70. I don't think the American people really like these laws.

It seems like there is pretty widespread feeling, on both the left and the right, that it's too much power for the government. But that doesn't matter because it's just what the people of America think. We don't really get a chance to vote on stuff like this.

That's just a guess though. I'd like to see a poll to see what Americans really think about this.