Feingold On Rachel Maddow To Talk Up 28th Amendment

Rachel went from having one of the least respected men in politics on her show to one of the most. After hearing a lot of spin (and possibly some admission of guilt mixed in) with Blagojevich, her interview with Senator Russ Feingold shows that even he has something in common with the impeached Governor.

Paterson Needs To Get Behind Feingold's 28th Amendment

David Paterson is feeling quite a bit of heat from his bungled Senate appointment across the board, save for Schumer and his new Senator Gillibrand. Whether or not Gillibrand was the right choice or not, Paterson must agree that the whole appointment process did not go so well and that his popularity suffered for it and more importantly his chances of getting a primary appointment next year have increased. If he wants a little saving grace, the Governor might want to get behind Senator Russ Feingold's plan to introduce a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

From Senator Feingold:

Over the past several months, our country has witnessed controversies surrounding appointments to vacant Senate seats by governors. The vacancies in Illinois and New York have made for riveting political theater, but lost in the seemingly endless string of press conferences and surprise revelations is the basic fact that the citizens of these states have had no say in who should represent them in the Senate. The same is true of the recent selections in Delaware and Colorado. That is why I will introduce a constitutional amendment this week to end gubernatorial appointments to the U.S. Senate and require special elections to fill these vacancies, as is currently required for House vacancies. As Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, I plan to hold a hearing on this amendment soon.

I do not make this proposal lightly. In fact, I have opposed dozens of constitutional amendments during my time in the Senate, particularly those that would have interfered with the Bill of Rights. The Constitution should not be treated like a rough draft. Constitutional amendments should be considered only when a statutory remedy to a problem is not available, and when the impact of the issue at hand on the structure of our government, the safety, welfare, or freedoms of our citizens, or the survival of our democratic republic is so significant that an amendment is warranted. This is such a case.

The entire post is worth a read and makes for a worthy case to end the system of Senate appointments once and for all. The seventeenth amendment made direct elections of Senators possible and the 28th shall finish the job. While this is Senator Feingold's initiative, that should not stop all of the prinicipal actors of the last few months (Gov. Paterson, Sen. Gillibrand, Gov. Ritter, Sen. Bennet, whoever replaces Blagojevich and Sen. Burris) from taking bold positions and standing with Russ on this. Not only will it have to pass the Congress, but three-quarters of the State Legislatures as well. Paterson should redeem himself for the circus he helped create by doing away with the gubernatorial selection of Senators.

Feingold And Whitehouse Try To Stand Senate Up Against The White House

Although George Bush had publicly wished that the United States was a dictatorship, he has certainly done his best to make that a reality. Signing statements, pushing for retroactive immunity and starting wars are all part of his legacy. The undermining of the Constitution and the country have not gone unnoticed, particularly by Senators Feingold and Whitehouse, who are now trying to do something about it, at least in this one regard.

From RawStory:

"No one disputes that a President can withdraw or revise an Executive Order at any time," Feingold said as he introduced the bill Thursday. "But abrogating a published Executive order without any public notice works a secret change in the law."

"Because the published Order stays on the books, it actively misleads Congress and the public as to what the law is," he said.

Feingold said the new bill would eliminate that problem by requiring a notice of any change within 30 days, though it "does not require the publication of any classified information."

"On rare occasions, national security can justify elected officials keeping some information secret," he said, "but it can never justify lying to the American people about what the law is. Maintaining two different sets of laws, one public and one secret, is just that -- deceiving the American people about what law applies to the government's conduct."

Oh Senator Feingold, don't you realize that lying to the American people is what George Bush does best? This is a good step on Senator Whitehouse and your part, but we'll see if the full Senate actually approves it and dares to show some sort of spine in front of the President. One thing is for sure, Republicans won't go along with it, and that means either it won't make it to the President or even if it does, he won't sign it (duh) and a veto override would be impossible.

We Are About To Make A Terrible Mistake

For the last hour or so I've been watching the eloquent speeches of Senators Feingold, Dodd, Bingaman and Specter (with minor notes from others) denouncing the current FISA bill. Those few that have read the bill know that what the President signs will inevitably shred the Fourth Amendment and do (more) irreparable harm to our Constitution and our country. Those that vote against the amendments and for the bill will say that they are doing the right thing, but whatever comes out of their mouths will be lies they hope you will swallow, like these two below.

From Get FISA Right:

MYTH: Opposition to the compromise bill is because of the desire to punish telephone companies

Source(s): A good-enough spy law, Nancy Soderberg, Los Angeles Times, July 5, 2008; Flip-flop accusations get too much mileage, Ruth Marcus, Erie Times-News, July 5, 2008
Soderberg says, "the compromise bill's opponents -- mostly Democrats -- want also to punish the telecommunications companies that answered President Bush's order for help." This is a gross misrepresentation of the reasons for opposing the "compromise" bill. Arguing before the US Senate for maintaining the balance struck by the original FISA bill, Russ Feingold said, "Based on the history of, and potential for government abuses, Congress decided that it was not appropriate, not appropriate, for telephone companies to simply assume that any government request for assistance to conduct electronic surveillance was legal." (Audio)
FACT: Opposition to the FISA compromise is based on concern for fundamental civil liberties

MYTH: Telco immunity covers wiretapping suspected terrorists

Source(s): President Bush can still dream, can't he?, Kathleen Parker, South Bend Tribune
Parker says, "The bill effectively grants immunity to phone companies that wiretap suspected terrorists." The compromise bill grants broad immunity to telephone companies for any wiretapping done at the request of the government, including numerous alleged instances of wide-net gathering of all communications, both foreign and purely domestic. To suggest that immunity only covers "suspected terrorists" is a laughable statement, unless you accept that all Americans and foreigners are suspected terrorists.
FACT: Immunity covers all illegal wiretapping, including purely domestic communications

In a few minutes from now the Senate will vote on the amendments to strip retroactive immunity and the bill itself. Senator Dodd is trying to shame his fellow Senators at the moment for ignoring the Constitution and he is dead on. It is a shame that any Senator who should represent Americans before telecommunication corporations to vote for this bill. These men and women will sign their names to one of the worst pieces of legislation in recent memory.....and they will be held accountable, even if they think no one is paying attention....they would be wrong, because we are watching them.

Russ Feingold Lays FISA Out On The Floor

While respecting the need to provide security for our nation, Feingold eloquently lays out the case on why we must strip retroactive immunity for the telecommunication companies from the FISA legislation:

FISA Situation Brightens Just A Little

Last week the House of Representatives brought a tidal wave of bad news by voting for the FISA legislation that not only gives the President unprecedented powers, but gives Bush a free pass by letting the telecommunication companies that aided and abetted his illegal spying on Americans off the hook. Plenty of Democrats voted against it, but enough voted with the Republican caucus to pass it, including many that got extra payoffs from telecom lobbying efforts. Now it heads to the Senate, and this is where we have to stand our ground and beat this bill back to the boardrooms of AT&T, Verizon and the conniving heads in the White House. The good news, the bill is most likely not going to be put to the test this month.

From RawStory:

The schedule for a FISA vote “is up in the air,” a source close to the majority leader tells Raw Story, and no decisions had been finalized Wednesday afternoon.

Senators debated the FISA bill throughout the day Wednesday, although negotiators had not brokered an agreement on how to proceed with votes on amendments. On the Senate floor, Feingold excoriated the compromise for not holding telecommunications companies accountable for their participation in the warrantless wiretapping program, despite the token court review advocates for the bill are touting as a compromise.

“No one should be fooled about the effect of this bill. Under its terms, the companies that allegedly participated in the illegal wiretapping program will walk away from these lawsuits with immunity. There is simply no question about it, and anyone who says that this bill preserves a meaningful role for the courts to play in deciding these cases is wrong,” Feingold said.

Feingold also brought up the fact that the bill is an abomination without retroactive immunity. Russ points out that the bill gives an incredible amount of power to the Presidency, something few Senators or any public official is willing to do. Senator Feingold speaks truth to power on this very important Constitutional issue and he should be commended for his actions. Keep up the fight Senator, we need all we can get to kill this bill in 2008.

Feingold And Dodd Vow To FISAbuster

Nothing was more deplorable (this month) for the Democrats than to let FISA go through the House with retroactive immunity. Pelosi, Hoyer and dozens of others forgot about their duty to their constituents and the Constitution and gave a free pass to the telecommunication companies that violated the law and let George Bush off the hook for masterminding these crimes against America. Moreover, the bill obliterates the Fourth Amendment and gives the government unprecedented power to legally spy on citizens of a supposedly free country.

Now the bill goes to the Senate and our chances aren't that great. Barack Obama did the politically centrist thing and endorsed the House bill, so counting on him to put an end to this isn't likely. However, there are at least two good men in the chamber that do care, and they are ready to filibuster this thing straight into the next Congress and hopefully make it gone for good.

From RawStory:

In a last-ditch attempt to fix a surveillance bill critics say would essentially legalize President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program, Sens. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Chris Dodd (D-CT) have promised to filibuster the bill as long as it offers telecommunications companies retroactive immunity.

“This is a deeply flawed bill, which does nothing more than offer retroactive immunity by another name. We strongly urge our colleagues to reject this so-called ‘compromise’ legislation and oppose any efforts to consider this bill in its current form. We will oppose efforts to end debate on this bill as long as it provides retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that may have participated in the President’s warrantless wiretapping program, and as long as it fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans,” the senators said in a joint statement Tuesday.

“If the Senate does proceed to this legislation, our immediate response will be to offer an amendment that strips the retroactive immunity provision out of the bill. We hope our colleagues will join us in supporting Americans’ civil liberties by opposing retroactive immunity and rejecting this so-called ‘compromise’ legislation.”

Filibustering this bill shouldn't be too hard as long as the members remain committed. There isn't much time before the July 4th recess and once the Senate gets back there is a lot of bills to get in order. If this has the possibility of tying up the Senate for weeks, Reid might just put the bill off for good, at least for the 110th Congress. They key is to push the bill off this year and then do it right once Obama is President next year.

There Are Laws...Then There Are George Bush's Secret Laws

How bad is it that Senator Feingold has to hold these hearings???



I'd love to see Bush giving testimony, but we'll have to settle for this Administration stooge.

FISA Me This, FISA Me That

So today was an important one with regards to the remaking of the FISA legislation. With only a week to go before the current legislation expires, those legislators that swim in the pockets of telecom lobbyists are desperate to get retroactive immunity passed for the companies so they won't have to be held accountable for their crimes. It is a sweet deal for AT&T, Verizon and the like, but a sour proposition for the U.S. Constitution. Thankfully there are some elected representatives who are on our side, you know, the people and are fighting tooth and nail to make sure those companies that violated the law are forced to be held accountable in a court of law.

From The Huffington Post:

In an interview with the Huffington Post on Thursday morning, Sen. Russ Feingold, who opposes granting immunity to those companies, expressed disappointment that his party's leader, Sen. Harry Reid, was not doing more to help strike the provision from a newly considered version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

"Of course I have great respect for the Majority Leader," said Feingold. "He is a good friend of mine. But I really do disagree with his way of proceeding."

At issue is the likely passage of a version of FISA that contains retroactive immunity over one that doesn't. Reid has said he supports the former, but legislatively, the path has been paved for the passage of the latter. In addition, there is debate over an amendment offered by Sen. Chris Dodd, to strip immunity from any FISA bill. If that fails -- and it seems likely -- Dodd has threatened to filibuster the whole bill. On Wednesday, Reid was interpreted as saying any such filibuster will be the standing and talking variety as opposed to an agreed-upon 60-vote minimum threshold. Feingold, who supports Dodd's stance, took slight issue with that approach.

"We should have a normal process were this is debated based on a majority vote in the senate," said the Wisconsin Democrat. "That's the way it should have been done and I regret that it's not being done that way. Of course, I support Senator Dodd. He and I were principally involved in making sure this didn't get jammed through before the holidays and I will be supporting him again. But this decision does make it harder."

Now Reid supports Feingold and Dodd on principle, but he could have made the cause a lot easier to attain. Instead we are caught in this mess where a dozen Democrats capitulated to corporate America (specifically Senators Rockefeller, Bayh, Mikulski, Pryor, Salazar, McCaskill, Nelson (FL), Carper, Nelson (NE), Landrieu, Inouye, and Johnson).

At this moment, the Judiciary bill (without immunity) was ditched by sixty Senators and on Monday the issue will be taken up and Feingold/Dodd will introduce an amendment to the Intelligence bill (with immunity) to strike the immunity. Ah, Senatorial squabbles, how interesting to watch the fate of our democratic practices in the balance while they use such cordial language.

If you want, make sure to tune into C-SPAN next week before the State of the Union and see if enough Democrats stand up against the telecommunications industry and the idiot-in-chief that will be delivering his fairy tales to the Congress and the nation that evening.

Feingold Goes After Petraeus

One of the shining lights in the Senate....Russ Feingold questioned Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker about the sensibility of fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq as opposed to Pakistan and the rest of the world.

What Good Does Censure Do?

I commended Russ Feingold for bringing up Censure for George Bush last year, although it ultimately failed. It's a simple statement that shows the President is off course. Now Russ is bringing it up again, but why? We are far beyond censure as we were even back then. Senate leaders do not see much in it now as they did last year, but they won't look at impeachment either. Impeachment is what we need, not censure and certainly not inaction.

From The Huffington Post:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Feingold's proposals showed the nation's frustration. But Reid said he would not go along with them and said the Senate needs to focus on finishing spending bills on defense and homeland security.

"We have a lot of work to do," Reid said. "The president already has the mark of the American people _ he's the worst president we ever had. I don't think we need a censure resolution in the Senate to prove that."

As for the Senate's top Republican, "I think it's safe to say Russ Feingold is not a fan of George Bush. I think that's the best way to sum that up," said Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

That pretty much sums it up. The nation knows what time it is. Republicans are watching clock tick down until Bush is gone, trying as hard as they can to keep this war and the assault on the Constitution going as much as possible. The only way to stop it is to get rid of Dick and Bush with a trial in the Senate, but Democratic leaders would rather pass bills that are ultimately slapped down and ignored by a tyrannical despot that occupies the White House. At least we know where our priorities are.

Secret Senators Trying To Hold Onto Campaign Secrets

With the ease of the internet it should be no problem to see the campaign financial information of every candidate that runs for office. In the House of Representatives, all of their important people and numbers are easily accessible online. Yet that is not the case for the Senate.

Dianne Feinstein and Russ Feingold have been working on getting a bill pass so that the public can see documents in pdf format rather than in giant boxes of paper for a few years now and you would think that having the majority could speed things up. Apparently they could not due to a secret Senator in the Republican caucus. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) brought up the objection to the bill but did not name who was holding up the legislation.

Feingold had a quick reply:

“I am disappointed that a Republican Senator has chosen to block my bill to require Senate campaign reports to be filed electronically. This bill has bipartisan support in the Senate and significant support around the country, from editorial boards to bloggers on both the left and the right. I am aware of no opposition to it at all. I do not understand why someone in this body would block a bill that simply brings the Senate filing process into the 21st century, and do so anonymously and without explanation.”

In the last session of Congress we found out that Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) was the sneaky bastard who fought to keep public information from being widely dispersed. The question is who is doing it now? Could it be Mr. Internet tubes again or another one of his Republican buddies? Knowing the effectiveness of the blogosphere, I think we will discover the culprit and put the hot, glaring spotlight on them in no time.

Feingold Kicks Ass

Russ in all his glory: