Feingold Takes A Stand

Senator Russ Feingold, one of the few Democrats in Washington who actually does what he says and stands for something anymore, appeared on ABC’s This Week today and announced that tomorrow he’s introducing a very special resolution to the Senate. The resolution would censure President Bush for authorizing an illegal warrantless domestic surveillance program, something many Americans on both sides of the political fence have considered within impeachment territory. Certainly, it brings up some unanswered questions and it displays once again President Bush’s nose-thumbing at the U.S. Constitution and the laws he’s supposed to uphold as our top-most leader. I think we all deserve some answers, and if Bush is well within his rights, then fine, but let’s do this right.

If you want to see the video, go here.

But if you’re lazy, here’s the transcript:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Tomorrow in the Senate you’ll introduce a resolution to censure George W. Bush. Let me show it to our viewers. It says, “Resolved: that the United States Senate does hereby censure George W. Bush, President of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans.” That is a big step. Why are you taking it now?

FEINGOLD: It’s an unusual step. It’s a big step, but what the President did by consciously and intentionally violating the constitutional laws of this country with this illegal wiretapping has to be answered. There can be debate about whether the law should be changed. There can be debate about how best to fight terrorism. We all believe that there should be wiretapping in appropriate cases. But the idea that the President can just make up a law in violation of his oath of office has to be answered.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But as you know, the President says he was acting on his inherent authority under the Constitution, and even your resolution acknowledges that no federal court has ruled that a president does not have that authority as Commander in Chief, so aren’t you jumping the gun?

FEINGOLD: Not at all. You know, we’ve had a chance here for three months to look at whether there’s any legal basis for this, and they’re using shifting legal justifications. First they try to argue that somehow, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, they can do this. It’s pretty clear that they can’t. Then there’s the argument that somehow the military authorization for Afghanistan allowed this. This has basically been laughed out of the room in the Congress. So the last resort is to somehow say that the President has inherent authority to ignore the law of the United States of America, and that has the consequence that the President could even order the assassination of American citizens if that’s the law. So there is no sort of independent inherent authority that allows the president to override the laws passed by the Congress of the United States.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So if you’re so convinced that the President has broken the law, why not file an article of impeachment?

FEINGOLD: Well, you know, that’s an option we could look at, if somebody thought that was a really good idea. There are other options out there. In fact, this conduct is right in the strike zone — even though the Founding Fathers didn’t have strike zones, they didn’t have baseball — but it is right in the strike zone of the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors. We have to consider, is it best for the country to start impeachment proceedings? Is it best for the country to consider removing the President? We’re not mandated to impeach a president who has broken the law, but I think we are required to do our job, to live up to our oath of office, and say, wait a minute, there has to be — at least as a first step — some accountability. Proper accountability is a censuring of the President, to say, “Mr. President, acknowledge you broke the law, return to the law, return to our system of government.” That’s what I think we should do. [“VIDEO: Feingold Will Introduce Resolution To Censure President Bush” (ThinkProgress.org)]

tags: Russ Feingold, Censure, Democrats, warrantless wiretapping, The U.S. Constitution, George W. Bush, politics, Senate

4 comments

1. on March 12, 2006 at 4:10 pm

   Big Dog said:

   Don’t you think that they should determine if it was illegal before they censure? I know it was not and the Congress knows it was not but the donks get off calling it illegal so they can beat it into the sheeple of America who don’t have enough intelligence to get information themselves. They can’t help it, public schools. Feingold is a valiant man. Why, the way he acted in such a partisan manner toward Judge Alito. No matter what anyone thinks about Alito, he is more than qualified for the job and has forgotten more about law than Feingold knows, but that did not stop Russ from acting like a spoiled child.

   Feingold’s call for censure is what got him added to the Jackass of the month poll at my site. He has stiff competition though so he might not win.

   Now if they actually found that Bush were guilty of something then it might be a different story. Feingold is executing payback. Andrew Jackson was the only President that impeachment proceedings were levied against until Clinton and that same Jackson was the only President to ever have a censure. It is a game that Feingold hopes will help into the White House in 2008. Fat chance.

2. on March 12, 2006 at 5:06 pm

   N. Mallory said:

   I don’t think anyone know for sure that it’s illegal or not at this point. I think that’s the big question on everyone’s minds. I think the thing is that there needs to be an investigation and it’s about time someone got around to it. Maybe if the Republicans would stop trying to block the normal balance and check activities of Congress, then the few Dems who have a backbone still out there wouldn’t have to go to such extremes.

3. on March 12, 2006 at 5:10 pm

   Big Dog said:

   How can you censure someone for something that might not be wrong.

   I believe that the courts have ruled on this twice in the past, once for Clinton and once for Carter but I am not absolutley certain. Stare decisis, something Feingold and Schumer were fond of saying.

4. on March 12, 2006 at 5:17 pm

   n. mallory said:

   Neither of those cases were for this case and it’s handling and it’s particulars. If the Repubs had just let the investigation go ahead previously, we wouldn’t be having this discussion now.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.