Ah, the smell of webforms in the morning, it smells like... form response time... well, close to it anyway.
Yes, I actually filled out those wonderful webforms to contact my Senators, Congressman and everyone on the Senate Judiciary Committee! They are such wonderful people, all so worried about the Executive following the laws and the Constitution that they have forgotten their OWN powers in dealing with threats. Someday we might get a real Congress that understands that when they are given powers by The People, that we really and truly expect that those powers be *used* for us.
Ok, don't hold your breath. Much easier to pass the buck to the Executive than to get your dainty hands dirty doing some of the heavy lifting necessary to really combat terrorism. The following is the form letter I sent out, spelling errors and all, to those fine people who know how to sit and yak, but not figure out how to make the country safer. Go figure.
==================================================================
Dear Senator [insert last name here],
I did a quick review of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing of 6 FEB 2006 and found the following interchange to be of interest (copied from the Washington Post online transcript):
GONZALES: That is a categorical statement by the president.
As to whether or not the statute that you referred to would be constitutional, these kinds of questions are very, very difficult.
One could make the argument, for example, that the provision in the Constitution that talks about Congress under Section 8 of Article I, giving Congress the specific authority to make rules regarding captures, that that would give Congress the authority to legislate in this area.
Now, there is some disagreement amongst scholars about what "captures" means.
GRAHAM: And I take this, it's talking about ships, it's not talking about people.
But it's clear to me that the Congress has the authority to regulate the military, to fund the military. And the Uniform Code of Military Justice is a statutory scheme providing guidance, regulation and punishment to the military that the Congress passes.
GONZALES: I think most scholars would say that would fall under the clause in Section 8 of Article I giving the Congress the authority to pass rules regarding government and regulation of the armed forces.
While this is technically correct, within the bounds that The Honorable Mr. Gonzales was talking about, it is an incomplete reading of the Constitution, especially for the Warmaking Powers granted solely to Congress. The complete line addressing this is:
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
These, however cannot be read as stand-alone as the Congress gets one additional power that dileneates the scope of its abilities earlier in Section 8:
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
Taken as a whole, then, Congress gets the entire Commerce and free-flow of goods on the High Seas power, as well as the ability to define classes of Felonies on the High Seas and to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal for those areas where the Executive may not step. In truth, through its ability to give warrants to duly authorized agents to carry out its Laws, Congress may designate non-Federal individuals or organizations to carry out its activities as it did in former times.
As the United States is not a signatory to the Congress of Paris outlawing Privateers, and as seeing as how terrorist organizations must use shipping and most likely own vessels through front organizations, Congress may set laws against the movement of goods bound for or in support of terrorists on the High Seas. Further Congress may authorize its own agents to do such work.
I have written further on this topic at my website, with these two particularly addressing this topic:
http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/02/pork-is-for-terrorists.html
http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/02/congressional-role-in-warfare.html
I bid you good day and hope for a day when Congress remembers that it once was an *active* body in its own right in protecting this nation as our history has demonstrated.
Sincerely,
[Yes, my real name went here, heh!]
aka A Jacksonian
"We did not start this fight, but we sure as hell will END it." - A battle sentiment of the US from its founding onwards.
THE ABOVE VIEWS ARE MY OWN AND MAY ONLY BE ATTRIBUTED TO "A Jacksonian". NO PERSONAL CONTACT INFORMATION MAY BE RELEASED WITHOUT MY PRIOR AUTHORIZATION.
==================================================================
Now, if you are in the office of Senator John Cornyn: Your webform will not accept anything I put in the comments area, so you have been left out of this. If you have a webpage for inputting comments and I duly do so and go through the validation, I really and truly expect that the damn thing will go through. Might I suggest doing a bit of work on your webpage? I mean if it has been abnormally quiet for input, you just might have a problem. Didn't work in either Firefox or MSIE.
And thank you to Senators Leahy and Feingold for having actual, real email addresses! I do expect there to be Spam filterage, but think that these messages should get through that.
And, no, I really have zero expectation that anyone beyond some poor staff member will actually *read* these messages. But I have done my bit... even if it is to send electrons to the bit-bucket.
The Following have gotten the email:
U.S. SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER (R-PA) CHAIRMAN
U.S. SENATOR ORRIN G. HATCH (R-UT)
U.S. SENATOR CHARLES E. GRASSLEY (R-IA)
U.S. SENATOR JON KYL (R-AZ)
U.S. SENATOR MIKE DEWINE (R-OH)
U.S. SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL)
U.S. SENATOR LINDSEY O. GRAHAM (R-SC)
U.S. SENATOR JOHN CORNYN (R-TX)
U.S. SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK (R-KS)
U.S. SENATOR TOM COBURN (R-OK)
U.S. SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY (D-VT) RANKING MEMBER
U.S. SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY (D-MA)
U.S. SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR. (D-DE)
U.S. SENATOR HERBERT KOHL (D-WI)
U.S. SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA)
U.S. SENATOR RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD (D-WI)
U.S. SENATOR CHARLES E. SCHUMER (D-NY)
U.S. SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN (D-IL)
Plus my two State Senators from VA and my local Congressman.
Representative Government, the worst of all systems, except for all the rest.
Update: Thank you Senator Feinstein for letting those of us out of your state address you on National topics. Now, if you would have only included a valid return email address... *sigh*
Senator Specter, if you sit as a Chairman of a Committee that addresses the nation, taking in only those views of your constituents is your right. Perhaps some day you can get a real email address in which mail can be sent to your Committee as a whole. Until then, good day and do not expect *any* support on National topics that you may care about nor appeal to me for such support in the future. Somehow you have forgotten you are a United States Senator from Pennsylvania, and *do* note the order of precedence.
Similarly, Senator Graham, you seem to enjoy wanting to look for *answers* to what role Congress can play in the War on Terror, but only if it involves meddling in the Executive. If you will only accept concern from your own constituents, like Senator Specter, that is your right. But if you seek answers and are unwilling to listen to those of us concerned with the safety of the Nation, then so be it. Like Senator Specter, do not expect *any* support from me on National topics on your behalf, nor ask for my direct support for anything in the future. While elected from South Carolina, you serve the Constitution and the Nation *first* your own constituents *second*, if your oath is meaningful to you, that is.
Senator Kennedy, although we may not agree on many issues, I thank your office for at least *accepting* my views, even if it is to just bit-bucket them. That is a damn sight more than others are doing!
12 February 2006
My open letter to Congress
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment