Russ Feingold: Beware the Lame Duck Session

Sen. Russ Feingold, writing at Huffpo, tells us to beware the lame duck Congressional session.

It would be a huge mistake to overlook the potential for damage in the lame duck session. A lame duck session doesn't sound like anything to worry about, but this lame duck may be a lot more dangerous than people think. We can expect Republicans to try to jam through as much of their agenda as they can while they have the chance.

The biggest threat: Bush's push to legalize his warrantless eavesdropping program.

There are a lot of bad bills that the Republicans may try to ram through, but here's the worst of the worst - a bill to legalize the President's warrantless wiretapping program. The White House is desperate to enact this bill, which allows the government to spy on American citizens, on American soil, without a warrant.

Other bills they will try to push through: tax cuts and trade policy.

< Tom Noe Convicted | The Original Fighting Dem: Howard Dean >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    and nominations, too (none / 0) (#1)
    by scribe on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 11:31:11 AM EST
    nominations to be stopped during this session include Bolton (again), Gates, and judicial types (like the five or six discussed the other day).

    Tie the Repugs up in procedural knots, and break out the duck calls when they squawk.  Because that's all their noise will be - the sound of a lame duck quacking.

    Lame Duck Congress (none / 0) (#4)
    by wlgriffi on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 11:56:32 AM EST
    It's not the Regular Repughs we need to worry about. It's the MOLE (Lieberman) that is likely to allow the lame ducks to sneak through their agenda.

    Lame duck session (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ivyfree on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 11:37:16 AM EST
    Forgive my ignorance, but IF the Republicans do push through some legislation like that, can't a Democratic Congress repeal it?  I'm not talking about amending it- although I know that can be done- but simply enacting legislation to repeal House or Senate Bill Whatever?

    Yes, but (none / 0) (#3)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 11:41:07 AM EST
    Yes, the new Congress could pass legislation amending or eliminating earlier acts, but the new legislation still has to have the signature of the President.

    Let's start.... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:15:44 PM EST
    with the internet gaming prohibition act....please?

    The 4th (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 12:16:38 PM EST
    Now is the time for We The People to stand up for the Bill of Rights and particularly the Fourth Amendment. Call your rep or senator TODAY and let them know you will not tolerate warantless wiretapping. Bush is trying to absolve himself of his high crimes before the new Congress is convened...and beyond. We must not let him, no matter what political stripe we are. Some things are more importnant than partisan politics and this is one of them.

    Absolutely correct, and I am of... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 01:28:44 PM EST
    ...the opinion that you cannot just legislate away any portion of the Constitution or eliminate a provision through the use of a bogus signing statement.

    Any changes to that precious document would have to be made by a Constitutional Convention convened for that purpose and any decision they make to change it would not be effective unless and until it is ratified by 38 states.

    Without ratification they are mere words of desire and of no consequence.

    It MAY be that even if 38 states ratified the change the other states might have the option of disassociating itself with the union of states, as the terms under which the states have operated since the beginning of the nation, a contract, would be changed and by that change be inimical to their own state constitutions. Wouldn't THAT be fun.

    I certainly NOT sure of this last thought, but you must admit it is an intriguing idea.


    AETA (none / 0) (#6)
    by s5 on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 01:19:47 PM EST
    Beware indeed. Yesterday, Congress rammed through the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a vague yet dangerous bill that would reclassify legitimate protest and already-illegal actions as "terrorism", which can be triggered if a company dealing in animals complains that it didn't make as much profit as it hoped. I guess that makes me a terrorist now - I just enjoyed a tasty vegan lunch!

    Of course (none / 0) (#8)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:21:29 PM EST
    Feingold was author along with McCain of the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, signed by Bush.  

    larry king (none / 0) (#9)
    by peacrevol on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 02:36:04 PM EST
    did any of yall watch larry king last night? he had judge judy on as a guest and she made a really good point about what she thinks about the demos taking over. she said that it was like if an owner of a restaurant has everybody's business until they start getting sloppy, the food gets dirty, the restaurant gets dirty, and people go to another restaurant. she said if the owner of the other restaurant keeps it clean and their food is still competitive, they'll keep the customers, but there is a lot of pressure on the new restaurant b/c they have to keep the food good and the restaurant clean or the customers will find somewhere else to go. if the demos dont keep it clean, we might be looking at a rise in a third party, probably libertarians. badnarick for pres in '08. i cant spell it but i wont have to in the poll booth.

    He's got mine (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:19:10 PM EST
    Badnarik got my vote blind....if it should happen to be Guiliani vs. Hillary, he'd have a good shot of winnning too...the best since Perot anyway.  Half the electorate already can't stand those two and might seriuously look at an alternative.  Hopefully.

    Let's do better than Badnarik (none / 0) (#12)
    by roy on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 03:35:08 PM EST
    He's got the same problem as our current president: he pretends that the law already says what he wants it to.  Refusing to pay income tax, refusing to get a driver's license, and generally refusing to accept courts' decisions on the Constitution if they didn't agree with his.  He's as damaging to libertarianism as Nader is to environmentalism.  People like him are the reason the phrase "small-l libertarian" is so useful.

    Civil Disobedience (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 04:56:42 PM EST
    Refusing to pay income tax, refusing to get a driver's license

    I call that civil disobedience in the Thoreau mold...he refused to pay taxes too.  A little different than run of the mill Bush law-breaking, imo.