NY Times Article Review 2
The article I read was published on 9-13-06 in the NY Times. This article demonstrated almost all aspects of government. The title of the article is, “Democratic Effort to Limit Surveillance Bill Is Blocked.” Though the title may give an idea of just about democrats; it’s much more than that.
This article described the Senate Judiciary Committee’s endorsement for a bill backed by the White House. The bill being backed by the White House is referring to a bill that would give the President of the United States of America more constitutional freedom to conduct warantless wiretaps. Now the controversy is that one of the loudest critics of Bush has been Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), and he is the committee chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Critics of the bill, state that their concerns are seeing American’s rights abused. Senator Feinstein (D-CA) offered a competing measure that would reaffirm the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as the “exclusive” way that wiretapping could be ordered in an intelligence case. That measure in which Senator Specter himself voted for. The measure and the bill are not compatible, nevertheless Specter did vote for both to hit the floor for debate. Senator Specter claims that he has a compromise with Bush to bring his Bill before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and called this, “quite a breakthrough.”
This article relates to a couple topics on areas of government.
§ Constitutional Authority of the President; President Bush wants to be able to listen in on all communications with out having to obtain a warrant. Sighting that in wartime the president has the authority to do what ever necessary to protect the people. Now he’s faced strong opposition and his image has been tarnished, so being a president worried about his image, he is working with the senate to come up with a resolution. In so doing he’s come to an agreement with the Senate.
§ The structure of the congress; in trying to work with bush, a way of getting a resolution is to draft a bill. That bill was drafted by Senate Leadership in the Senate Judiciary Committee. A committee in the senate or the house writes a bill to their interpretation after there own debate and compromise and introduces it to the floor for debate. Should it pass, it would go to the House of Representatives. If we have the bill passing from both Senate and House then it would go to the President to sign into law.
Senator Arlen must not want a bill to pass at all. Considering the bill with the measure are contradictions. He must know that there are only a few days left in session to pass this bill, and it still hasn't hit the floor yet. So he comes off saying "I don't agree with the president", and yet behind closed doors, "Yes Mr. President, you can listen to whom ever you'd like even though it's against the LAW." WHAT KIND OF MAN CAN WRITE LAWS FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND CAN ALLOW SOMEONE TO JUST DISREGARD THEM?
This article described the Senate Judiciary Committee’s endorsement for a bill backed by the White House. The bill being backed by the White House is referring to a bill that would give the President of the United States of America more constitutional freedom to conduct warantless wiretaps. Now the controversy is that one of the loudest critics of Bush has been Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), and he is the committee chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Critics of the bill, state that their concerns are seeing American’s rights abused. Senator Feinstein (D-CA) offered a competing measure that would reaffirm the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as the “exclusive” way that wiretapping could be ordered in an intelligence case. That measure in which Senator Specter himself voted for. The measure and the bill are not compatible, nevertheless Specter did vote for both to hit the floor for debate. Senator Specter claims that he has a compromise with Bush to bring his Bill before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and called this, “quite a breakthrough.”
This article relates to a couple topics on areas of government.
§ Constitutional Authority of the President; President Bush wants to be able to listen in on all communications with out having to obtain a warrant. Sighting that in wartime the president has the authority to do what ever necessary to protect the people. Now he’s faced strong opposition and his image has been tarnished, so being a president worried about his image, he is working with the senate to come up with a resolution. In so doing he’s come to an agreement with the Senate.
§ The structure of the congress; in trying to work with bush, a way of getting a resolution is to draft a bill. That bill was drafted by Senate Leadership in the Senate Judiciary Committee. A committee in the senate or the house writes a bill to their interpretation after there own debate and compromise and introduces it to the floor for debate. Should it pass, it would go to the House of Representatives. If we have the bill passing from both Senate and House then it would go to the President to sign into law.
Senator Arlen must not want a bill to pass at all. Considering the bill with the measure are contradictions. He must know that there are only a few days left in session to pass this bill, and it still hasn't hit the floor yet. So he comes off saying "I don't agree with the president", and yet behind closed doors, "Yes Mr. President, you can listen to whom ever you'd like even though it's against the LAW." WHAT KIND OF MAN CAN WRITE LAWS FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND CAN ALLOW SOMEONE TO JUST DISREGARD THEM?
posted by San Antonio Young Democrats at
9/14/2006 11:39:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home