... and has the Supreme Court had much effect?

Impeachment is the only law that applies to the Presidency.... that and the conscience of the President.

Posted at July 4, 2008 2:48 PM in response to A Time-line Of Obama's Statements On FISA

They are not even guidelines. They are words on paper... sometimes useful when Congress chooses to exercise power.

But Congress does not need them to exercise power... and President is not bound by them either... absent Congressional willingness to impeach when its arbitrary and unfettered judgment it wishes to do so.

Congress doesn't need no stinkin' bill of rights to impeach... just the will to do so.

The President, now that we are in perpetual war, can do anything he pleases... subject only to Congress's willingness to impeach.

Welcome to America!

Posted at July 3, 2008 4:21 PM in response to A Time-line Of Obama's Statements On FISA

Obama, as President, and as established by Bush, will have unfettered (except by possible impeachment) power, once elected.

Therefore it REALLY doesn't matter if he supports or opposes retroactive immunity.

If we went after the phone companies (now or in the future) we'd have to go after the President... by impeaching Bush. We've already established that that will not happen, so while we could prosecute the phone companies, why should THEY resist illegal Presidential orders when CONGRESS ITSELF has not resisted illegal Presidential orders. It makes no sense.

Realizing this, Obama is not going after the telephone companies.

The only force that will prevent him from make illegal requests of phone companies is the same one that would have stopped Bush... the threat of impeachment. That threat is unlikely, so he has no reason not to make illegal requests (outside of FISA) just as Bush had no reason not to do so.

The President, we have clearly established (if there were any doubters) is NOT constrained by law. He is constrained by the threat of impeachment.

Therefore it matters not a bit whether we enforce the law in relation to the telephone companies... Presidential power is limited only by impeachment and by a Congress willing to impeach.

Therefore, finally, Obama's not backing retroactive immunity is designed to get him elected, and to prevent "weak on national security" attacks. The left, which should know better than your average middle American undecided voter, needs to figure out that the retroactive immunity issue is a great symbol, but because it is of ZERO practical significance is not a good reason not to support Obama.

Besides the threat of impeachment, the other limit on Presidential power is the conscience of the President, and I'd certainly trust Obama more than McCain to attempt to do the right thing.

peace, out

Posted at July 3, 2008 3:18 PM in response to A Time-line Of Obama's Statements On FISA

... the point of AOE is not to change sexual behavior... it is to put money in the pockets of people who think that AOE is a good idea.... it injects money into the conservative ecosystem.... and the more AOE fails and produces more pregnancies... the more AOE educators and the conservative ecosystem rallies around AOE and the right.

It's a perfect system... nothing succeeds like failure.

That's the larger premise of disaster capitalism and the Iraq war.... failing creates reasons to keep on doing more of the same...

Abstinence education works because it produces pregnancies which create a need for more abstinence education. I love it.

Posted at July 2, 2008 2:38 AM in response to Whoa! Hidden Message in Obama's Faith Based Initiatives Message.

Lying scumbags? Sure they are. But that's just standard language in a settlement... they are paying off in exchange for the victim agreeing that the pay off doesn't constitute an admission of guilt... and the victim agrees because he gets a sure thing (money, now) rather than a real victory in a criminal or civil court (later and maybe never.)

Posted at June 28, 2008 1:11 AM in response to U.S. Settles for $5.8 Million With Scientist Accused In 2001 Anthrax Scare

Actually, I don't think his policy proposals are any thing but vaguely relevant to winning this election.

It's his personality, his casual offhand remarks, his thematic positioning, whether he wears a tie with his suit, or not, who appears standing next to him and behind him.

That is the stuff that wins and loses elections... that plus the debates, plus enthusiasm and voter turn out, plus the smear campaigns....

But he's got to get the flow, the "personality", the presentation package, the "naturalness" rehearsed so well that he's even got himself fooled. Nobody gives a rats ass (unfortunately) about his alternative energy proposal. He's got one, McCain has one... who is going to figure out which one is better? Not one person in a thousand, and it doesn't matter how many times the NYTimes writes about it.

The successes he's had have all been in the area of feeling and emotion, but so have some of the failures. That's the ground where elections are won and lost.

Posted at June 26, 2008 5:39 PM in response to Can the Obama Campaign Shape the Agenda?

Well said Theda. I've not been impressed with my candidate's political strategy... or that of his campaign.

I don't have the answer, but he'd better figure it out!

The thing that he just keeps doing... stupidly... is talking about people in the third person. Just like he did when he said "they" are bitter, instead of "I understand that YOU are bitter... "

I heard another snippet where he was talking about "them"... people he was claiming to be sympathetic toward... but he was talking about them instead of TO them. Stupid stupid stupid. On such attitudes and mistakes elections are lost. Sociological analysis gets you advanced degrees but loses elections. I see no evidence that he's figured that out.

Keeping my fingers crossed that he will.

Posted at June 26, 2008 4:38 PM in response to Can the Obama Campaign Shape the Agenda?

The loss of all illusions and false hopes is the first step toward discerning what it is actually possible to be hopeful about.

Posted at June 22, 2008 11:40 AM in response to Obama Backing FISA "Compromise"

Newsflash... It IS all absurd and meaningless.

But within that context I think Obama would like to use whatever small room for maneuver the power structure provides to do something good, while the Republicans pretty much endorse the way it operates as "the way things ought to be."

Even if he can't make a difference it is valuable to have someone who feels he ought to try.

Posted at June 22, 2008 12:19 AM in response to Obama Backing FISA "Compromise"

What WSG said.

Bush Cheney have established the obvious... Presidential power is unlimited... unless Congress is willing to impeach. It doesn't matter what limits are written into law. The President, including Obama, is not beholden to the law.

This Presidential stuff ain't tiddlywinks. The President has exactly as much power as he cares to exercise, up to the point where Congress, arbitrarily and at its sole discretion, decides to remove him from office.

Even if Congress wanted to lift retroactive immunity it is the President who would be called on through the Justice Dept. to prosecute... and it is the President who could probably issue corporate and personal pardons. Ain't gonna happen, is it?

Obama is just acknowleing the obvious. He can't do anything about this as a Senator... and when he is President the Senate still can't do anything about this without his help.

In the mean time there is no upside to enabling another attack on him as insufficiently pro-"kill them to they're double dead."

Congress can pass laws until the cows come home. It doesn't matter. The President can do what he wants until he is impeached. I don't understand what part of this simple equation... this simple reality of authoritarian government people don't get.

Posted at June 21, 2008 10:09 PM in response to Obama Backing FISA "Compromise"