You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #22: I've read the bill [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
Jcrowley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-12-06 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. I've read the bill
in it's entirety. Used to study that aspect of our government in painstaking detail. Not fun.

Anyway I have no dog in this fight either. I'm pretty indifferent to both of my state Senators. They've got alot of baggage and tons of cash not to mention boundless political ambition. I'd rather the party swing with the likes of Feingold and Waters. The American public is ready.

And to confuse the issue further read this:
The Schumer NSA Bill and the Feingold Censure Resolution

Marty Lederman

There's a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee today on Senator Feingold's censure resolution, dealing with the NSA's extra-legal electronic surveillance program. As I explain below, I think the legal substance of the Feingold Resolution is unassailable, and the emergence of the censure resolution certainly plays a valuable role in keeping the issue in the public eye. Beyond that, I don't have enough information or political acumen to calculate whether the Feingold Resolution is a politically astute tactic -- but the one thing I'm fairly certain of is that, although it's well-intentioned, it will not lead to cessation of the NSA program, or to any serious and effective assertion of congressional war-powers prerogatives.

Accordingly, I return to the question I asked two months ago: What can Congress do about this conflict, anyway? I continue to think that what I wrote then was correct: The only way for Congress to prevail in this important war-powers stand-off is if the Supreme Court declares the President's conduct unlawful. Assuming that's correct, the only worthwhile thing for Congress to do is to pass a statute such as that proposed by David Barron, establishing statutory standing for parties reasonably chilled by the NSA program, and facilitating expedited Supreme Court review.

Enter Senator Schumer's new bill, S.2468, which would do just that. This is the bill that should be the top legislative priority. The bill is very simple:

Most importantly, it would create a statutory cause of action -- and thus statutory standing -- for certain persons with a "reasonable fear" that their communications are being intercepted, authorizing them to file an action asking a court to enjoin or declare unlawful the NSA program. A reasonable fear would be established by evidence that the plaintiff either has regular wire communications from the U.S. to Afghanistan, Iraq or Pakistan, in the course of paid employment involving research pertaining to terrorism or terrorist groups, or commercial transactions with a bank or financial institution in those countries.

If you are up to studying these things in detail I highly recommend Lederman's (above link) website. Very thorough and no nonsense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -"12 Reasons Not to Trust Schumer" (must read) AnnInLa  Nov-12-06 12:34 PM   #0 
  - Sounds like the writer has a grudge against Schumer. I disagree.  texpatriot2004   Nov-12-06 12:50 PM   #1 
  - Another thing I think this is more Dem against Dem infighting and  texpatriot2004   Nov-12-06 12:51 PM   #2 
  - Schumer did a great job recruiting candidates  ps1074   Nov-12-06 12:56 PM   #3 
  - Why not let the people decide, Chuck?  longship   Nov-12-06 01:01 PM   #4 
  - Righttttt..... You DC insider pols are going to become increasingly irrelevant  cryingshame   Nov-12-06 06:20 PM   #8 
  - Look, it'll all be fine.  yibbehobba   Nov-12-06 07:12 PM   #18 
  - counterproductive argument  yibbehobba   Nov-12-06 06:25 PM   #9 
  - Is that why Schumer  slaveplanet   Nov-12-06 01:16 PM   #5 
  - Well, why complain about that?  TomClash   Nov-12-06 01:50 PM   #6 
     - Who's complaining?  slaveplanet   Nov-12-06 06:07 PM   #7 
        - Uh, I think he was looking for candidates that could win.  yibbehobba   Nov-12-06 06:27 PM   #10 
           - No, he was out looking for candidates  slaveplanet   Nov-12-06 06:40 PM   #13 
              - Well...  yibbehobba   Nov-12-06 06:55 PM   #16 
  - I DO NOT TRUST HIM!  Rainscents   Nov-12-06 06:30 PM   #11 
  - Since when is Schumer associated with the DLC?  yibbehobba   Nov-12-06 06:37 PM   #12 
     - They're just bored  Lurking Dem   Nov-12-06 06:40 PM   #14 
        - I heard that Rahm said liberals eat babies and kill puppies.  yibbehobba   Nov-12-06 06:52 PM   #15 
           - LOL!  Lurking Dem   Nov-12-06 06:56 PM   #17 
  - The Party Bosses know best. So just bend over and smile.  Tierra_y_Libertad   Nov-12-06 07:13 PM   #19 
  - An interesting bill here  Jcrowley   Nov-12-06 07:23 PM   #20 
     - The bill does no such thing.  yibbehobba   Nov-12-06 07:29 PM   #21 
        - I've read the bill  Jcrowley   Nov-12-06 07:45 PM   #22 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC