D.C.'s favorite conventional wisdom is the claimed need to "balance" liberty and security. Nancy Pelosi often stumblingly asserts the need to uphold the Constitution, and then, typically, immediately cites the "preamble" of the Constitution in order to segue into a flat statement that the most important duty contained within the Congressional oath of office is to provide for the common defense, or rather, these days, to protect "national security" and ensure that we "support the troops" (today's "last refuge of a scoundrel"), thereby nobly saving the lives of the American people (from foreign attack, at least)...

Here's that preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html

Those are the broadly-defined primary objectives of the system of government "ordained and established" by the people in their Constitution. Those are not, however, objectives that can be separated from or fulfilled outside the system designed by that Constitution, and somehow still be considered Constitutionally sound or legitimate, simply because a particular end happens to be the same end identified as one objective of our federal Constitutional system.

In other words, first comes the Constitutional system of government, and only by acting within that system are all the professed objectives in the preamble to be achieved - not because there aren't other ways of achieving a "common defense" or ensuring "national security," etc., but because without honoring the (necessary-to-liberty) limits of our Constitutional system and its provisions for open and democratic debate, we have abandoned it, whatever our (honorable or dishonorable) motivations for so doing may be. As Rep. Jay Inslee put it very well in his minute of time on the floor Friday in opposition to H.R. 6304, "law is the ultimate guardian of our liberty."

From this perspective, there's really no "balancing" of "security" and liberty at issue. Because that would be akin to saying that Congress has the need to "balance security and the Constitution" (implying that in some cases the Constitution must simply give way to undefined "security"). On the contrary, "security" may be extended as far as we like, provided that we (Congress and the president) do not exceed the bounds of the Constitution's many limits, unless those limits are extended by Constitutional amendment. Such amending, however, now seems to be as quaint an idea as impeachment to current federal officeholders.

The Legislative and Executive Branches are clearly attempting to implement - without Constitutional amendment - a significant reinterpretation of the Fourth Amendment (among others), while simultanteously trying to keep the Judicial Branch from overruling their interpretation, using the secrecy inherent in "national security" classification as an aide in that object and a nonConstitutional approach to "the common defense" as a justification for their actions.

For those who have uncritically absorbed the national media's glorification of the presidency, and who focus only on the policy items on the legislative agenda they'd like enacted to the exclusion of the foundational significance of this FISA deal and the intended role of Congress in the federal system, I'd say this:

A primary reason that so much hope has been projected onto Obama, to the exclusion of the Congress, and that longed-for legislative agenda items have been thwarted, is the collapse of vital parts of the Constitutional system that were intended and designed to empower - first among equals - the voice of the people in their government in order to enact and act out our will. In other words, you won't get national healthcare or global warming addressed, or a sane defense budget or public financing of campaigns while the presidency (and party power) is considered of supreme importance and the two (and only two) national political parties controlling Congress defer to the presidency regardless of party (Democrats), or when it's held by their own party (Republicans), to the exclusion of the prerogatives of their own branch of government [off-the-table, inherent contempt, meaningful oversight, declaration (and thus ending) of war, blocking of unwise Supreme Court nominees, etc., etc.]. A benevolent 'Constitutional dictator' as president may sooth the symptoms for a time, and disguise the disease, but until we address the cause of the disease, it will remain.

Nationally, for president, we can't attack on the "third party" track with much success, due to the rigged rules of the game. Senators and Representatives, however, are not national candidates. Independent, citizen-financed candidates can attack with significant success in many, many districts and states, given enough funding. Success in that endeavor would change the balance of power, first by affecting the undemocratic control of Congress by unaccountable political party leadership, and then more fundamentally between the Executive and Legislative Branches of government. And truly, contrary to the corporate-censored media's message, Congress is where the power is in our system of government - something I am confident that members of the Republican Party in Congress will be demonstrating in spades next year if Obama is elected president (and tries to nominate judges without consultation with the Republicans in the Senate, for example).

In short, attacking the corrupt status quo below the level of the presidency by focusing on Congress, with or without the blessing of the entrenched two-party-system (which is dedicated primarily to protecting its incumbents and thus its power regardless of purpose), can only help to restore the truly vital Constitutional "balance" that has been lost: That between the voice of the people in their Congress and those elected to faithfully, Constitutionally direct the Executive Branch of our government as it executes the will of our Legislative Branch of government.

P.S. In my preceding comment, H.R. 6034 should read H.R. 6304.