“All of the chamber’s Republican members voted in favor, as did 105 Democrats.”

Dammit, shoulda, remembered the “genuine original document” before relegating it to the “round file”…!

Jerkbahs…one and all, forever!
We will record your names for postarity!

http://www.doomedreport.com cause it ‘could happen’.

Pelosi brought the compromise to the floor anyway, and watched as her party fractured over the issue. Does that indicate that Steny Hoyer overruled Pelosi? No; she voted for the compromise in the end.

That’s because the republicans and democrats are now essentially one party.

There is the far left democrats and the center left republicans.

That’s frightening!

Why are only 12% of republicans ok with Mccain as our nominee?

Does that mean only 12% or less of republicans voted for him?

Why is he our nominee?

Our voting process is screwed up.

Our representatives pass this type of crap almost unamiously..they’re not representing us!

It’s time to start rolling back their unconstitutional power.

Cicero43 on June 20, 2008 at 4:53 PM

Illegal does indeed mean “in violation of the law”. I did not say argue otherwise.

I know of no law the government violated (in that sense, I’m with you), so I find the charges of ‘acting illegally’ highly dubious.

My point was that the behaviour of our government can be judged in different ways – and yes, we’ll need the SCOTUS to mount a constitutional challenge.

When it comes to our government, it need not be a law it has broken. It can also be judged as having operated outside the bounds of its authority – opening the possibility of constitutional challenges and maybe impeachments.

LimeyGeek on June 20, 2008 at 4:42 PM

“Illegal” means a law has been violated. Law can come from statutes or a constitution. However, if you’re going to argue that the federal constitution makes a certain act illegal, you’d better have five Supreme Court Justices to back you up. Your personal opinion won’t count for much.

Is nobody going to stand up and stop this government from expanding and expanding it’s power and stomping on our constitution?

It’s time to take back our country and stop the expansion of the government’s unconstitutional power.

Which specific law did the Bush Administration violate by monitoring international calls to or from persons in the U.S.?

When it comes to our government, it need not be a law it has broken. It can also be judged as having operated outside the bounds of its authority – opening the possibility of constitutional challenges and maybe impeachments.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Supreme_Court_rejects_ACLU_challenge_to_0219.html

Which specific law did the Bush Administration violate by monitoring international calls to or from persons in the U.S.?

Hey Mark Jaquith, where’d you go? Don’t you want to play anymore?

alphie on June 20, 2008 at 4:32 PM

Then name the court case(s). I’m willing to admit that the facts are different than I understood them to be, but you gotta prove it man. Vague references to “several courts”, of which I’m sure the court case that was thrown out against someone because they could not prove they had actually been damaged by AT&T is not one, will not suffice.

That’s why the we had such a rush to grant these traitors amnesty before they slink on home.

You guys on the Left don’t get challenged much, do you?

Cicero43 on June 20, 2008 at 4:28 PM

They are challenged. Severely challenged.

I believe the Bushies were listening in on any American phone calls they wanted to, Cicero.
alphie on June 20, 2008 at 4:20 PM

You “believe”? Brother.

You guys on the Left don’t get challenged much, do you?

alphie on June 20, 2008 at 4:20 PM

That’s factually incorrect – and will remain so until you can prove otherwise.

That’s why there corporate cronies needed immunity.

Let’s hope the goobers at the NSA erase all the records before Obama takes over…

Cicero43 on June 20, 2008 at 4:01 PM

I see we’re on the same wavelength there, haha.

Mark Jaquith on June 20, 2008 at 3:35 PM

Really? The government broke the law?

Please cite which action broke which section of the Code of Federal Regulations, and also which person in which agency was responsible.

You see, I don’t think the telecoms could find any section of the CFR which they were breaking – so I ask you this:

When the government requests a corporation to do something, and gives them a letter explaining that the request is legal, when should that corporation be allowed to ignore them? If the government tells an ISP to give them the name of someone downloading kiddie porn, should the ISP ignore them? When the SEC demands accounting records, should the corporations simply tell them to piss off?

What exactly is your set of circumstances wherein a corporation should be encouraged to ignore a request from the United States government, when the gov’t has provided paperwork assuring them the request is legal?

Also, if the gov’t ordered wiretaps, and the company complied, and those wiretaps are truly illegal, then who should be held accountable?

Please excuse the typo.

The illegal spying went on for years. It wasn’t a short period of “emergency conditions.” This was (and likely still is) sustained illegal spying on American citizens on American soil.

Mark Jaquith on June 20, 2008 at 3:35 PM

Okay, I’ll bite.

As an attorney with some modest experience in federal communications law, I have this weird need to see a citation to authority when someone makes an accusation of criminality. Which specific law did the Bush Adminstration violate by international calls to or from persons in the U.S.?

Waiting…

Freedom and justice for all the enemies of the great satan.

Feel safer yet?

Didn’t think so.