Tinklenberg Isn't a Moderate
According to
this Strib article
, "Erwyn Tinklenberg said Wednesday that he would support, but would not initiate, an effort to impeach President Bush."
Tinklenberg's saying that there's other issues more important than impeachment but that impeachment is still worthwhile. That quote will turn independants against him. The justification that's now being given for impeachment by the lead moonbat, John Conyers, is the NSA's terrorist intercept program.
At this point, it's only a point of contention that a law was broken. The Supreme Court hasn't said that it's a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The circuit courts that've ruled on similar cases have ruled in the Administration's favor. Even the FISA appellate court ruled that the President has "inherent constitutional power" to conduct warrantless intercepts.
Furthermore, a panel of FISA judges testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Here's the most important exchange:
Tinklenberg's the Democrats' definition of a moderate. Transferring that definition to this instance means that a 'moderate' Democrat wouldn't actively pursue impeachment. He'd just vote yes on it if a collection of moonbats voted on articles of impeachment in committee.
That isn't my idea of a moderate. I doubt it's sane-minded peoples' definition, either.
Posted Friday, May 12, 2006 2:06 PM
No comments.
Tinklenberg's saying that there's other issues more important than impeachment but that impeachment is still worthwhile. That quote will turn independants against him. The justification that's now being given for impeachment by the lead moonbat, John Conyers, is the NSA's terrorist intercept program.
At this point, it's only a point of contention that a law was broken. The Supreme Court hasn't said that it's a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The circuit courts that've ruled on similar cases have ruled in the Administration's favor. Even the FISA appellate court ruled that the President has "inherent constitutional power" to conduct warrantless intercepts.
Furthermore, a panel of FISA judges testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Here's the most important exchange:
Judge Kornblum: Presidential authority to conduct wireless [Sic. Presumably Judge Kornblum meant "warrantless."] surveillance in the United States I believe exists, but it is not the President's job to determine what that authority is. It is the job of the judiciary. *** The President's intelligence authorities come from three brief elements in Article II....As you know, in Article I, Section 8, Congress has enumerated powers as well as the power to legislate all enactments necessary and proper to their specific authorities, and I believe that is what the President has, similar authority to take executive action necessary and proper to carry out his enumerated responsibilities of which today we are only talking about surveillance of Americans.In other words, the thing that Democrats hang their hat on for impeachment is something that FISA court judges testified as being proper. In the final analysis, that means that Tinklenberg is supportive of impeaching the President for something that isn't a crime.
***
Senator Feinstein: Now I want to clear something up. Judge Kornblum spoke about Congress's power to pass laws to allow the President to carry out domestic electronic surveillance, and we know that FISA is the exclusive means of so doing. Is such a law, that provides both the authority and the rules for carrying out that authority, are those rules then binding on the President?
Judge Kornblum: No President has ever agreed to that.
***
Senator Feinstein: What do you think as a Judge?
Judge Kornblum: I think--as a Magistrate Judge, not a District Judge, that a President would be remiss in exercising his Constitutional authority to say that, "I surrender all of my power to a statute," and, frankly, I doubt that Congress, in a statute, can take away the President's authority, not his inherent authority, but his necessary and proper authority.
Senator Feinstein: I would like to go down the line if I could.
***
Judge Baker?
Judge Baker: No, I do not believe that a President would say that.
Senator Feinstein: No. I am talking about FISA, and is a President bound by the rules and regulations of FISA?
Judge Baker: If it is held constitutional and it is passed, I suppose, just like everyone else, he is under the law too.
***
Senator Feinstein: Judge?
Judge Stafford: Everyone is bound by the law, but I do not believe, with all due respect, that even an act of Congress can limit the President's power under the Necessary and Proper Clause under the Constitution.
***
Chairman Specter: I think the thrust of what you are saying is the President is bound by statute like everyone else unless it impinges on his constitutional authority, and a statute cannot take away the President's constitutional authority. Anybody disagree with that?
[No response.]
Chairman Specter: Everybody agrees with that.
Tinklenberg's the Democrats' definition of a moderate. Transferring that definition to this instance means that a 'moderate' Democrat wouldn't actively pursue impeachment. He'd just vote yes on it if a collection of moonbats voted on articles of impeachment in committee.
That isn't my idea of a moderate. I doubt it's sane-minded peoples' definition, either.
Posted Friday, May 12, 2006 2:06 PM
No comments.
