Gore and Kerry ran for President-- not King. Quotes on "Unitary Executive"

[omega minimo]

In comments on the filibuster of Alito and the theory of the Unitary Executive, Sen. John Kerry said,

“Carried to its logical end, the theory goes much further than invalidating independent agencies. The Bush Administration has used it to justify both its illegal domestic spying program and its ability to torture detainees. The Administration seems to view this theory as a blank check for executive overreaching.”

Haven't we already witnessed enough "overreaching" by the Bush/Cheney administration?

Two people who never had blank check or even an opportunity for executive overreaching, are the rightful Presidents of the United States, elected in 2000 and 2004, Vice-President Al Gore and Sen. John Kerry.

Had they been in the Oval Office --rather than the Roval Office --it is doubtful that they would have veered off course from prosecuting those who attacked the U.S. in 2001 to “fix facts around the policy” and preempt Perpetual War. Nor would they appoint partisan corporate cronies to the Supreme Court to perpetuate the squandering of America’s troops, workers and resources for the private power and profit of the obscenely super-rich at the top of a political pyramid scheme.

The reach of the Chief Executive of the United States just might have been enough for them. With respect for the integrity of our Constitutional form of government and the system of “checks and balances” between the three branches --Executive, Judicial and Legislative-- it’s likely that they would have sailed the ship of state without sinking it.

Al Gore and John Kerry wanted to be President, not King.

From: http://www.algore.org
Transcript: Bush Administration Policies on Domestic Surveillance
Monday, 16 January 2006
by Al Gore

An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the Founders sought to nullify in the Constitution - an all-powerful executive too reminiscent of the King from whom they had broken free.

In the words of James Madison, "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

<snip>

This legal theory, which its proponents call the theory of the unitary executive but which is more accurately described as the unilateral executive, threatens to expand the president's powers until the contours of the constitution that the Framers actually gave us become obliterated beyond all recognition.

<snip>

WHEN ADDED TO THE IDEA THAT WE HAVE ENTERED A PERPETUAL STATE OF WAR, the implications of this theory stretch quite literally as far into the future as we can imagine.

This effort to rework America's carefully balanced constitutional design into a lopsided structure dominated by an all powerful Executive Branch with a subservient Congress and judiciary is-ironically-accompanied by an effort by the same administration to rework America's foreign policy from one that is based primarily on U.S. moral authority into one that is based on a misguided and self-defeating effort to establish dominance in the world.

:kick: :bounce: :kick: :bounce:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012606Q.shtml

Kerry is trying to gather support for a filibuster of Alito's nomination.
CNN -- Thursday 26 January 2006

Excerpts from Kerry's Statement Opposing Judge Alito:

    This pattern of deference to government power is reinforced by a speech he gave as a sitting judge to the Federalist Society just five years ago. In his speech, Judge Alito 'preach the gospel' of the Reagan Administration's Justice Department: the theory of a unitary executive. Though in the hearings, Judge Alito attempted to downplay the significance of this theory by saying it did not address the scope of the power of the executive branch but rather addressed the question of who controls the executive branch, don't be fooled. The unitary executive theory has everything to do with the scope of executive power.

    In fact, even Stephen Calabresi, one of the fathers of the theory, has stated that 'he practical consequence of this theory is dramatic: it renders unconstitutional independent agencies and counsels.' This means that Congress would lose the power to protect public safety by creating agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission - which ensures the safety of products on the marketplace - and the Securities and Exchange Commission - which protects Americans from corporations like Enron - and the President would gain it.

    Carried to its logical end, the theory goes much further than invalidating independent agencies. The Bush Administration has used it to justify both its illegal domestic spying program and its ability to torture detainees. The Administration seems to view this theory as a blank check for executive overreaching.

:patriot:

Following are links to DU threads and other sources for info on the Unitary Executive. Check it out.

This is a link to an extensive history of the theory of the Unitary Executive and its implementation by the Bush administration:
http://www.users.muohio.edu/kelleycs/paper.pdf

Testimony on Alito from Professor Goodwin Liu
Posted by realFedUp
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
That concern is Judge Alito’s lack of skepticism toward government power that infringes on individual rights and liberties. Throughout his career, with few exceptions, Judge Alito has sided with the police, prosecutors, immigration officials, and other government agents, while taking a minimalist approach to recognizing official error and abuse.

Adam Ciongoli ....Alito's "Corner Man"
posted by HeatherDawn
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

WE CAN STOP ALITO THIS WEEKEND
http://www.democrats.com/we-can-stop-alito


Al Gore:

It is the pitiful state of our legislative branch which primarily explains the failure of our vaunted checks and balances to prevent the dangerous overreach by our Executive Branch which now threatens a radical transformation of the American system.

I call upon Democratic and Republican members of Congress today to uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution. Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of government you're supposed to be.

*As do we. WE CALL UPON DEMOCRATIC AND (CONSCIOUS, CONSTITUTION-LOVING, REAL) REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TODAY TO UPHOLD YOUR OATH OF OFFICE AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.

[Wordie]

1. The question is how to get those other Senators to see the danger.

Kerry's speech laid it all out. I pray that it has helped awaken them and we will see a change in the votes.

Thanks for this informative post, Omega Minimo. Recommended.

[omega minimo]

2. Hate to say it: question may be "what's in it for them?"

Obviously the Repugs are compromised/corrupted but what's wrong with the Dems? What happened to Robert Byrd? DU reported Barack Obame won't stand up for America?

If we ask what Congress is afraid of, it may help Americans realize it's up to US to contact Congress, as we are doing. It's working too, apparently. Check out Democrats.com (link in OP) if you haven't (also threads here) Excellent contact and action info, with reports on the Dems that are shifting to the correct position: FILIBUSTER.

Thanks Wordie :toast: Here's to (not BLANK!) Checks and Balances.

[Wordie]

3. Obama will support a filibuster, according to latest reports!

So, things are moving in a positive direction.

To Obama: :yourock:

And thanks to DU, that democrats.com site, with the filibuster count updated in real time, is pinned to the top of this forum. And over the time it's been up, several more Senators have joined the effort.

We can win this!

[omega minimo]

4. omg you mean the system's working?

:woohoo:

[Hidden Stillness]

5. Dayton and Salazar Also Great

Hi, omega minimo. I think the single greatest speech given by anybody on this nomination (against, of course), was the one by Sen. Mark Dayton, Minn., yesterday. It was brilliant and fiery and intelligent. Also great was Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado, on Thursday. You can read them on their Senate.gov websites, and they were on C-SPAN. I will truly miss the wonderful Mark Dayton, who is not going to run again--can't stand the glad-handing and fundraising, as opposed to just being an actual legislator, as Dayton intended to do. Another principled, moral person driven out of politics by all the corporations, and money, and whoring, and image.

[omega minimo]

8. Will have to look those up--of course the "Euphemedia" wouldn't cover them

" I will truly miss the wonderful Mark Dayton, who is not going to run again--can't stand the glad-handing and fundraising, as opposed to just being an actual legislator, as Dayton intended to do."

Another reason for election/campaign REAL reform.

:hi:



(re: no PM: thanks for your previous comments. I pointed someone to your "brilliance" who misguidedly got the thread locked)

[mom cat]

6. Absolutely outstandong! ...........WOOHOO!

:woohoo::applause::yourock::applause::woohoo:

[omega minimo]

7. Is this a test of the system that will prove it works?

:toast: Here's to ya mom cat, I see you putting in lots of energy to Paul Revere this thing.

:grouphug:

[omega minimo]

9. FLOOR STATEMENT BY SEN. MARK DAYTON ON JUDGE SAMUEL A. ALITO

http://dayton.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=250854&&

January 27, 2006

STATEMENT BY SENATOR MARK DAYTON ON JUDGE SAMUEL A. ALITO

<snip>

Finally, I am very concerned with Judge Alito’s view of executive power which reigns supreme over the other two branches of government. That radical view threatens the checks and balances the Constitution created among the three co-equal branches of government to protect our democracy and the rights of all American citizens.

All Members of Congress, not just those on my side of the aisle, should be deeply troubled about Judge Alito’s position on executive power. He does not believe that Congress and the courts are equal to the President. He believes the President has the right to interpret laws as he wishes, rather than as they are written.

As one illustration, while he served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Reagan Administration, Judge Alito recommended the use of interpretive Presidential "signing statements" – statements issued by the President when signing a bill not only to explain why the President signed it into law but also to provide his view of how the law should be interpreted.

The apparent purpose of such statements is to encourage the courts to pay as much attention to the President’s interpretation of a law as they do to the legislative branch and give the President the "last word on questions of interpretation." Judge Alito explained that such statements would "increase the power of the Executive to shape the law."

He also wrote in that memo: a "President’s understanding of a bill should be just as important as that of Congress." As a recent Los Angeles Times editorial stated, "On its face, the assertion threatens to undermine the fundamental constitutional principle that it is for Congress to write the laws and for the executive to, well, execute them."

President Bush has issued over 100 signing statements since 2001. The most notable was a signing statement a couple days after the President signed into law H.R. 2863, the "Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006," which contained the McCain amendment banning inhumane treatment of detainees by U.S. personnel. The President, in his signing statement, basically asserted he could ignore parts of the law he had just signed under his Constitutional authority.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say a President can ignore the parts of a law he doesn’t like.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there mention of "signing statements." The Constitution makes it very clear under Article I, Section 7 – what the President can do with legislation that Congress has enacted. He can sign it into law as it is written by Congress, or he can veto it. There is no other option.

For almost 190 years, our country’s first 39 Presidents followed this very clear language of the Constitution. Yet, then-Deputy Assistant Attorney General Alito in 1985 decided that he could ignore all those precedents and try to fabricate this ill-considered power for the President.

As yet, the Supreme Court has not been called upon to decide whether this unprecedented exaggeration of Presidential power is Constitutional. Can there be any doubt, however, how Judge Alito would vote in such a case?

[omega minimo]

10. Sen. Ken Salazar’s Floor Speech on His Opposition to Judge Alito

http://salazar.senate.gov/news/releases/060126alito.htm

U.S. Senator Ken Salazar
Member of the Agriculture, Energy and Veterans Affairs Committees

 Sen. Salazar’s Floor Speech on His Opposition to Judge Alito

“Mr. President, I rise today to explain my vote against Samuel Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court. I believe that Judge Alito will move the Supreme Court too far to the conservative side of American jurisprudence.

I believe Judge Alito’s judicial philosophy will also dangerously increase Executive power, injuring the checks and balances built into our Constitution that protect all of us. I believe Judge Alito’s confirmation may roll back important civil rights protections; protections, Mr. President, that were achieved in our country through the sacrifices of many and are crucial to the future of the United States.

<snip>

I find Judge Alito’s views to be outside the mainstream of legal thought in 1985. And since that time, based upon his decisions as an appellate judge and in his other writings, Judge Alito has ruled consistently with the legal philosophy he ascribed in 1985. I believe that legal philosophy is wrong for our Nation.

Specifically, Mr. President, I believe Judge Alito’s legal philosophy about the structure of our government under our Constitution will harm our country, if ultimately adopted by the Supreme Court. The Framers of our Constitution were geniuses, they created a legal structure for our country that has endured and prospered for more than two centuries. The Framers were not successful because they were abstract thinkers. They were successful because they were practical thinkers, practical Americans. The Framers knew human nature, and their view of human nature focused on the common frailties of people placed in positions of great power, human desires together more power, and a very human unwillingness to understand the perspectives of others.

Out of their geniuses, the Framers created a system of checks and balances. The Framers made rules that require that power must be shared. They created a system with three coequal branches. They then distributed the powers of government among and within the three branches. They created a system with explicit and implicit limits for the powers of each branch. They created a system where the people who govern the United States are in constant tension with and against each other, always limiting and checking excesses that are all too human.

I think Judge Alito’s judicial philosophy will diminish our system of checks and balances. He will expand the powers of the executive branch to an extent that is dangerous to us all. I believe that Judge Alito would grant the executive the power to overwhelm the Congressional and Judicial branches.

Let me cite a few examples from his record:

First, I am troubled by Judge Alito’s 1984 brief in the Mitchell case in which he as asserted absolute immunity for high government officials ac accused of illegal wiretapping.

I am troubled by his support in 1986 for the idea that presidential signing statements of presidents’ remarks accompanying the signing of a bill can change the intent of the Congress that debated and passed the bill into law. A President executes the law. A President does not rewrite or alter the law.

I am troubled by Judge Alito’s firm belief in a unitary executive, and an unwillingness to acknowledge the importance of checks and balances that exist within the executive branch itself.

And I am troubled by Judge Alito’s pattern of great deference to the Executive branch. Judge Alito’s judicial philosophy in this area is particularly striking against the backdrop of current events. The current Administration has adopted a widespread, concerted legal strategy to increase executive power under our Constitution. It is wrongly pushing beyond the well-established edges of executive power in many cases, based on a carefully calculated concerns are not based exclusively on my view of the current President or my ideas about how he would or would not wield dominant executive power.

Mr. President, we are talking about changes in the Court that could affect our government, our government for decades as presidents of both parties take office and govern. Dominant Executive power is not a safe bet for anyone, regardless of one’s views of the current president. When considering a potential Supreme Court Justice, we must look beyond the politics of our time and we must protect the basic structure, the system of checks and balances among coequal branches. Administrations of varied ideology and vision must recognize that checks and balances.

<snip>

In conclusion, Mr. President, I believe that Judge Alito will move the Supreme Court too far to the conservative side of American legal jurisprudence. Judge Alito’s judicial philosophy will dangerously increase executive power, injuring the checks and balances built into our constitution to protect us all. And Judge Alito’s confirmation will roll back important civil rights protections, protections that were achieved in our country through the sacrifices of many and which are critical to our nation’s future.

I, therefore, will vote against this nomination.”

[Hidden Stillness]

13. A Couple More Quotes From Dayton Floor Speech

Dayton's speech really grasped the important points of the issue here, and made for some memorable quotes. There was a real understanding of how Alito will be an oppressor of women, specifically, and of how the nominee should have been a moderate woman like O'Connor.

"Unfortunately, Judge Alito denied most of us those answers. It is noteworthy, however, that the Senators who feel most strongly about overturning Roe v. Wade all support Judge Alito and seem comfortable with his non-answers. I can’t imagine such equanimity without other, private assurances that the nominee’s bland platitudes belie a bedrock anti-Roe predisposition, as he stated candidly in 1985.
"Certainly, the country’s anti-abortion activists get it. The thousands of them who marched on the Capitol last Tuesday reportedly cheered every time Judge Alito’s name was mentioned. Quoting parts of the New York Times and Washington Post reports:
" " ‘We must support the confirmation of Judge Alito and other jurists who will support a strict-constructionist view of the law and make it possible once and for all to end Roe v. Wade,’ Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), a leading House conservative, thundered."
" "While Mr. Bush made no explicit mention of his nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court, the expectation that the judge would soon win Senate approval and join a majority in overturning Roe was clearly the overarching message of the rally. . . .
" "Nellie Gray, the president of March for Life, the group that organized the rally, said reversing Roe was this year’s theme. Speaking to the crowd in fiery tones, Ms. Gray predicted that the United States would hold the equivalent of Nuremberg trials for ‘feminist abortionists,’ calling support for a woman’s right to choose ‘crimes against humanity.’ "
"Let me turn to other subjects. I agree with my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, who told Judge Alito on the third day of the Judiciary Committee hearings, "Integrity, I think, is the #1 issue."
"I always feel uncomfortable to stand in judgment of another person’s integrity - or other matters of personal character - especially someone whom I do not know personally. No one is perfect. I like to say that there are no saints in politics - only shades of sinners!"

Then, this ending:
"In closing, some critics are blaming the Senators who oppose Judge Alito for the absence of bipartisan unanimity in support of the President’s nominee. Their blame is misplaced. The way to get broad, bipartisan consensus for a Supreme Court nominee is for the President to nominate someone from near the middle of the judicial mainstream. A nominee who promises to be a Justice for all of the American people, not just for those on one side of the social spectrum.
"President Bush initially proposed someone who might have offered that possibility: Harriet Miers. In addition to her moderately conservative views, she would have maintained the Court’s gender imbalance at two women and seven men. By contrast, if Judge Alito is confirmed, that appalling under-representation of America’s women will become even worse. Our nation’s highest court, the ultimate arbiter of the rights and protections for all citizens, will be comprised of eight men and only one woman, of eight Caucasians and only one minority.
"Unfortunately, the activist extremists on the country’s political right erupted against Ms. Miers. Their vicious denunciations of the nominee and threats of reprisals against her supporters prevailed, before her capabilities could be reasonably considered.
"Now, some of that nominee’s destroyers are sanctimoniously bemoaning the absence of unanimous support for this nominee.
"Unfortunately, their sound and fury, as Shakespeare said, signify nothing. Sadly, their winning this confirmation will not be a victory for this country.
"Because, tragically, they profoundly misunderstand the essential reason for the Supreme Court, which is to protect each one of us from all the rest of us. To protect the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" of a minority of Americans from the potential domination by the majority.
"The nine men and women on the Supreme Court must protect everyone by belonging to no one. The goal of "taking over" the Supreme Court is shortsighted, narrow-minded, and wrong. For our great nation to continue to succeed, any and every such effort must fail. That failure is America’s victory."

By the way also, omega minimo, I thought that Ralph Nader thread was really great and very informative, allowing a real chance to get some of these things discussed, as they never are. I understand people's anger at Nader, but my lifelong, high opinion of Nader makes me uncomfortable with the really venomous criticism that I think should be directed at Republicans and corporations. It was a great thread, then all of a sudden--bam!--the guillotine came down.

[omega minimo]

14. "she would have maintained the Court’s gender imbalance at 2 women& 7 men"

Well, he certainly knows how to turn a phrase...and anyone who quotes Shakespeare on the Senate floor :thumbsup:

"In addition to her moderately conservative views, she would have maintained the Court’s gender imbalance at two women and seven men."

No small irony in "maintaining" an "imbalance." Sly dog.

"By contrast, if Judge Alito is confirmed, that appalling under-representation of America’s women will become even worse. Our nation’s highest court, the ultimate arbiter of the rights and protections for all citizens, will be comprised of eight men and only one woman, of eight Caucasians and only one minority."

Yep, imbalance maintained! Status quo! That's what all these "gender issues" are really about anyways.

"Because, tragically, they profoundly misunderstand the essential reason for the Supreme Court, which is to protect each one of us from all the rest of us. To protect the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" of a minority of Americans from the potential domination by the majority.
"The nine men and women on the Supreme Court must protect everyone by belonging to no one. The goal of "taking over" the Supreme Court is shortsighted, narrow-minded, and wrong. For our great nation to continue to succeed, any and every such effort must fail. That failure is America’s victory."

" ‘We must support the confirmation of Judge Alito and other jurists who will support a strict-constructionist view of the law and make it possible once and for all to end Roe v. Wade,’ Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), a leading House conservative, thundered."

"Strict-constructionist"? In the name of God and in the name of the Constitution, these people want to commit unholy abominations AGAINST the Constitution.

(Yes, we made some Progress B-) din't we? There were many lessons, including: too much truth and Bam!)

[omega minimo]

11. Sen. Barbara Boxer's statement in opposition of Alito nomination

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x264293

[omega minimo]

12. the greatest

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x264391

it's not about information, is it? it's about............... it's about................ it's about..........................................
:yoiks:

[omega minimo]

15. People are talking and things are happening

What can be done must be done

If we give up, we are sure to lose

This will happen again, unless people prefer information to slogans, prefer ideas to bullshit

"An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will."

[newswolf56]

16. Kicked/recommended (n/t)

[omega minimo]

17. Well Gee Thanks

Now I'm goin back to perfecting the art of the 2 sentence OP.

:hi: :bounce: :kick:

[newswolf56]

18. Posting problems -- apparently DU is still having major server troubles --

made it impossible to say any more. I originally said much more -- a four-paragraph elaboration on Gore's "pitiful state of our legislative branch" comment (and how that condition is the direct result of corporate media's refusal to cover politics) -- but it wouldn't post: the computer just hung there in electronic limbo. Finally after about a half-dozen tries I gave up. Ditto for the other links you PM'd me: this one and the poly sci paper (for which many thanks) were the only ones that would open; the others just froze my computer until I dumped them.

These connectivity problems are by far the worst I have ever seen on DU (or for that matter on any other site) and I don't doubt for a moment they're government jamming -- the Bush Administration's response to DU's superb function as an ad hoc coordinating committee for the stop-Alito effort.

Hope this one goes through; if not I'll try to PM it to you.

[omega minimo]

19. The Alito Confrontation

http://www.truthout.org/Alito.shtml

TruthOut page with for Senate floor statements, articles, editorials, etc. on Alito nomination

Double plus good :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[omega minimo]

20. Sacramento Bee editorial "gets it"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x266874

In the face of runaway presidential power and inroads against congressional power by both the president and the U.S. Supreme Court, you'd think it would be the U.S. Senate's Republican majority opposing Samuel Alito's nomination to the nation's highest court.

After all, Republicans traditionally have favored limited government. And with a Republican majority in both chambers, Republicans ought to be the ones who rise to protect the integrity of congressional powers when the president and the courts encroach.

Yet when the Senate votes on Tuesday, it is likely to be along party lines, Republicans for and Democrats against, marking an unfortunate chapter in our history.

The Senate process of "advise and consent" has become so predictably partisan that Congress has lost sight of its institutional interests and place in our constitutional system of checks and balances.

[omega minimo]

21. In Alito, GOP Reaps Harvest Planted in '82

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013006Q.shtml

NYT article

In Alito, GOP Reaps Harvest Planted in '82