The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 609

Ghoulish Delight · 05-27-2011, 08:15 AM

This may or may not be the most disturbing part:

Quote:

With Obama in France, the White House said the president used an autopen machine that holds a pen and signs his actual signature. It is only used with proper authorization of the president.

What? Seriously?

Alex · 05-27-2011, 10:00 AM

While I have significant issues with the Patriot Act as a whole, the whole was not at issue here.

So of the things extended:

- Roving wire taps. While I recognize the gray areas, ultimately I come down on the side of supporting them. Again, I see the potential dangers of it, but at the moment I am ok with it proceeding.
- The business records section. I have issues with the existence of the FISA court but its existence is not at issue here. My main beef with this part of the Patriot Act is the gag rule it places on the people served with an information request. As long as that is in there I oppose any extension or expansion.
- The lone wolf stuff, if I understand it correctly (and I'm not sure I do) doesn't establish the surveillance abilities it just extends the duration that can be authorized by the FISA court. If my understanding is correct then that seems a wash to me in the "we've establish what you are, we're just haggling over price" vein.

So, as a president presented with having to take all three or getting none, I'm not sure where I would fall. Especially since it isn't like he was presented with time to veto and have Congress come back with something better before "none at all" was forced on him.

As for whether this is a betrayal. He voted for extend the last time it was up. And I don't think he has ever spoken against these provisions (though he has spoken out against the Patriot Act as a whole, but again that wasn't what he's signing), so I'm not sure why it would be a surprise.

Alex · 05-27-2011, 10:04 AM

As for the autopen thing, I'm not bothered by it absent any indication that the president did not authorize its use. But it may be of interest (but probably not, though 12 pages in I'm finding it surprisingly so) that the White House Office of Legal Counsel issued a report on the issue in 2005, finding that it does meet constitutional requirements for the president to authorize a subordinate to affix his signature, not to delegate the decision).

http://www.justice.gov/olc/2005/opinion_07072005.pdf

Oh, and to answer the original question on how I feel. I feel like the president may have made a deicision with which I disagree. I also feel that presidents do that all the time and so long as I don't feel the president is acting in bad faith, I don't hold it against him. I felt the same when the Patriot Act was first passed. I disagreed with it then, but I didn't think it evil. Some of the ways it was used later, however, changed that.

alphabassettgrrl · 05-27-2011, 07:41 PM

I have some issues with the Patriot act, but I'm glad it has an expiration date that it has to be renewed. I think most laws should have expiration dates.

Alex · 05-27-2011, 09:16 PM

Most of the Patriot Act does not have an expiration date, just a few parts. That is what was extended.

JWBear · 06-09-2011, 08:56 AM

I just read this online:

Quote:

GOP Congress's Pledge Of Allegiance

I pledge allegiance to the rich,
to Multinational Corporations of America,
and to the monies for which I receive,
one nation under GOP, completely corruptible,
with all power and money just for me.

It would be funny if it weren't so true.

Kevy Baby · 06-09-2011, 09:26 AM

I just read this online:

Quote:

I pledge allegiance
To the President
Of The Global State Of America
And to The Commune
For which he stands
One World Nation
Without God
With Tyranny
And Welfare
For all!

It would be funny if it weren't so true.

Kevy Baby · 06-09-2011, 09:27 AM

I just read this online:

Quote:

I pledge allegiance to the Left and all who hate America, and not to all the Republicans for which I can't stand, one nation without God, divisible, with liberty and justice for terrorists

It would be funny if it weren't so true.

Alex · 06-09-2011, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

It would be funny if it weren't so true.

Out of curiosity, if it weren't "so true" (I'll offer no judgment on that) why would it be funny?

innerSpaceman · 06-09-2011, 11:45 AM

Kevy, what are you taking?

05-27-2011, 10:00 AM	#2
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	While I have significant issues with the Patriot Act as a whole, the whole was not at issue here. So of the things extended: - Roving wire taps. While I recognize the gray areas, ultimately I come down on the side of supporting them. Again, I see the potential dangers of it, but at the moment I am ok with it proceeding. - The business records section. I have issues with the existence of the FISA court but its existence is not at issue here. My main beef with this part of the Patriot Act is the gag rule it places on the people served with an information request. As long as that is in there I oppose any extension or expansion. - The lone wolf stuff, if I understand it correctly (and I'm not sure I do) doesn't establish the surveillance abilities it just extends the duration that can be authorized by the FISA court. If my understanding is correct then that seems a wash to me in the "we've establish what you are, we're just haggling over price" vein. So, as a president presented with having to take all three or getting none, I'm not sure where I would fall. Especially since it isn't like he was presented with time to veto and have Congress come back with something better before "none at all" was forced on him. As for whether this is a betrayal. He voted for extend the last time it was up. And I don't think he has ever spoken against these provisions (though he has spoken out against the Patriot Act as a whole, but again that wasn't what he's signing), so I'm not sure why it would be a surprise.
	Submit to Quotes

05-27-2011, 10:04 AM	#3
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	As for the autopen thing, I'm not bothered by it absent any indication that the president did not authorize its use. But it may be of interest (but probably not, though 12 pages in I'm finding it surprisingly so) that the White House Office of Legal Counsel issued a report on the issue in 2005, finding that it does meet constitutional requirements for the president to authorize a subordinate to affix his signature, not to delegate the decision). http://www.justice.gov/olc/2005/opinion_07072005.pdf Oh, and to answer the original question on how I feel. I feel like the president may have made a deicision with which I disagree. I also feel that presidents do that all the time and so long as I don't feel the president is acting in bad faith, I don't hold it against him. I felt the same when the Patriot Act was first passed. I disagreed with it then, but I didn't think it evil. Some of the ways it was used later, however, changed that.
	Submit to Quotes

05-27-2011, 07:41 PM	#4
alphabassettgrrl Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,978	I have some issues with the Patriot act, but I'm glad it has an expiration date that it has to be renewed. I think most laws should have expiration dates. __________________ Why cycling? Anything [sport] that had to do with a ball, I wasn't very good at. -Lance Armstrong
	Submit to Quotes

05-27-2011, 09:16 PM	#5
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Most of the Patriot Act does not have an expiration date, just a few parts. That is what was extended.
	Submit to Quotes

06-09-2011, 11:45 AM	#10
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Kevy, what are you taking?
	Submit to Quotes

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode