A tool who calls himself wbbgone in trying to prove that there are values that ovverride the rule of law said, "Yet national security is also a core purpose of the U.S. and all other polities. The conflict here is narrow because, generally speaking, these laws ONLY apply to the national executive, who is normally the sole repository of power on such matters. The complication arises because the national executive is also specifically charged with protecting the American people."

When challenged to point to the place in the Constitution that assigns the executive the duty to protect the American people he cited the preamble to the Constitution, arguing, 'The Constitution established a Federal government, the enumerated PURPOSES of which include 1) "insur[ing] domestic tranquility," i.e., domestic security, and 2) provid[ing] for the common defence," i.e., national security."

Well mr. wbbgone your analysis is woefully deficient. First, re the preamble to the Constitution and your own words: all that stuff applies to the "federal government" as a whole, not the executive specifically. So that little piece of "evidence" is simply irrelevant.

You have to read the rest of the Constitution beyond the Preamble to understand how those powers and duties are divvied up among the branches. And this is where this tool goes way way wrong. he says of the value of national s3ecurity that, "generally speaking, these laws ONLY apply to the national executive, who is normally the sole repository of power on such matters".

That weak-ass argument won't survive a simple reading of Article I my friend. I suggest you read it and then reconsider whether the Constitutiothe president is the sole reporsitory of national security power.

Shooter back on P.14 said, "You don't consider that a truth that's self evident? Have you become a strict constructionist to the point where if not specifically mentioned, everything else is illegal or immoral?"

I know engaging Shooter is like engaging in hand-to-hand combat with a pile of dogshit but I can't resist.

So Shooter, you don't have any evidence, all youhave is alleged self-evidence, huh? The reason why we resort to written Constitutions is precisely so no one can arbitrarily make up an argument about self-evidence. We write and sign a Constitution so its all down in black and white and people have to argue in those terms -- they don't get to appeal to other principles "self-evident" or otherwise. The Constitution says plenty about how the People are to be protected. You don't get to add stuff on that you pull out of your ass.

And you don't have to be a strict constructionist assuming that nothing unmentioned has any bearing. The problem for your position Shooter is that there are things that ARE mentioned that conflict directly with it. In that case your extra-constitutional self-evidence is evidence that is simply inadmissible -- even if it wasn't disingenuosly motivated, which it is.

It's these kind of arguments that are the reason why you are a SENIOR dickhead.

There are two basic options:

1) You can either be forthright about your principles, taking strong stands, persuading people who are undecided or who are otherwise persuadable, carried along by the momentum of a base of supporters who are energized by principled political leadership standing up for the principles they share.

OR

2) You can be unprincipled, wheeling and dealing and being seen as a wheeler dealer, having no identifiable ideology (i.e. principles), having no reliable base other than those who ally with you on an ad hoc basis for pragmatic reasons.

FDR, LBJ, Reagan, and Bush (up until the end) all had great legislative ane electoral success using the first approach above.

Where are the great examples of the succesful triangulators? The Democrats have been trying it for 30 years with no success. Is Obama going to be the first?

xrandadu said, "On FISA, I think Obama made the only decision at that time that wouldn't have prevented him from being elected."

This is 100% wrong and symptomatic of the thinking of defeatist Democratic cowards. Steny Hoyer's opllster did a poll for the ACLU that asked about this very issue and found overwhelming opposition across party lines to the changes that were made in the FISA law.

Obama went out of his way to piss off the principled left and took the UNPOPULAR position.

Way back on Page 2 freelancer said, "I do want to avoid confrontation, division and angry dispute if it's not necessary. But I realize that this atmosphere created by the insatiably bigoted right and a passive left, we have to stay true to our principles. But just because you think that it must be done in a certain growling and ferocious manner doesn't mean the rest of us do...your whole "painfully stupid" diatribe to a reader yesterday was evidence of your adopting with vigor this meanness, this ferocity. Don't confuse it with strength of argument or of principle. It's not."

This is typical rhetoric of the cowardly Democrat. Glenn isn't being mean. He is reacting with appropriate and measured emotion.

You cowardly Democrats have been giving away the store for 30 years. Pretty soon there will be nothing left to give away. You're a bunch of blind cowards.

Nailed it!

As usual, Glenn's reactions are all spot on. While most of the media has no feel at all for what really matters and are frequently wrongheaded, Glenn is consistently rightheaded.

Thanks again, bro.

How can anyone have respect for Congress or the Democratic party when they pull bullshit like this? Torture is just not something to play political games with -- if you have any principles at all.

Feinstein I'm not as surprised by. We've seen her true colors (she has none) in the past but I'm at least a little bit more surprised by Wyden.

Hey Ron: whichever finger-in-the-wind lackey you're listening to on this point, just stop.