Senator Al Franken?

quote:

---

Michele Bachmann considers running against Al Franken; Matchup would pit famous comedian against nationally respected politician who used to be on SNL.

---

"nationally RESPECTED politician"? With humorless irony like that, it's no wonder clueless americans keep voting in clowns.Al Franken supports the NSA surveillance program against americans: he voted AGAINST the Amash NSA Amendment (ends the indiscriminate collection of phone and email records) on Wednesday. Besides Democrats Minority Leader Pelosi and Minority Whip Hoyer, and of course Bush Jr. II (Obama), Franken has gone on record AGAINST the fourth amendment:

quote:

---

Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps the most fundamental problem with the NSA's constitutional theory is that it has no limit. If the constitution is blind to the collection of our data and limits only the NSA's later uses of it, then the NSA truly can 'collect it all' now and ask questions later. Our emails, phone calls and internet activities would all be very simple for the NSA to collect under the NSA's theory. But it could go much further. It could put video cameras on every street corner, it could install microphones in every home and it could even remotely copy the contents of every computer hard drive.

​

Obama's Willing Executioners of the Fourth Amendment | HuffPost Latest News

---

quote:

---

We now know that NSA used Sec. 215 to collect metadata on every phone call that every American has made, reportedly over the last seven years. That metadata includes numbers dialed, numbers of incoming calls, times of the calls, and routing information. Many Members who voted for the Patriot Act, including the past chairman of the law’s authorizing committee, have stated that NSA’s blanket surveillance program is far beyond what was intended in the law.

​

http://amash.house.gov/speech/amash-nsa-amendment-fact-sheet

---

So laugh and deride all you want about Bachmann, because the last laugh is on us 99%ers.

Well, IMO, he is now a treasonous clown . . . No, we don't bother to elect representatives knowing they might flip their stance AGAINST their oath:

quote:

---

At the start of each new Congress, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate are sworn into office. This oath-taking dates to 1789, the first Congress; however, the current oath was fashioned in the 1860s, by Civil War-era members of Congress.

​

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

​

The first Congress developed this requirement into a simple, 14-word oath:

​

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."

​

Oaths of Office For Federal Officials

---

One cannot support the constitution (as Franken's stated in his oath) and attack it at the same time. Yep, Republican Representative Richard L. Hanna of New York went against his constituent's wishes when he voted FOR Same-Sex Marriage in New York. Boy, his base was mad at him.So, yes, when the change is evolutionary progressive as Hanna's change was, that is good.And when the stance changes to support de-evolutionary, pro-police state, fascism, constitution rejectionism, anti-liberty, attacking of right's . . . then it is bad. [Unless you are Adolf Hitler, which it then is good. Cue Crashfrog's relativist counter-arguments trumping people's inalienable rights and liberties]Like the destruction of some environmental habitats, once something is utterly destroyed, it is nearly impossible to bring it back. Once you drive over a cliff (oh no, please Tempe, no more cliff analogies), stepping on the brakes doesn't have much an effect . . .The NSA is contracting hundreds of companies to employ tens of thousands of employees like Snowden. Just like funding the industrial military complex, once its presence is enmeshed in the budget, it will be nearly impossible to reduce. There will be too much money/power to reduce it.I am fond of paraphrasing the following saying in my many crusades on the forum, "I am trying to prevent the epidemic, while Franken is driving the infected monkey to the airport." . . .It's imperative to fight the attacks on our liberties now, not the next election cycle. My freedom-hating NY Senator Dem Charles E. Schumer, along with Franken, Pelosi, and Obama support a police state and attack my rights and liberties. The clueless voters keep voting them in.What can I do?

"treasonous clown" . . .This is really off-topic but, . . .The term 'treasonous clown' reminds me of the court jester in fuedal times who was allowed to speak true but treasonous words as long as they were couched in metaphor or told thru songs or jokes. I think John Stewart might be today's modern court jester, as he is one of the only corporate media's allowable ways to gain true insight into modern politics.But I would use a different definition of 'treasonous clown' when Franken is being referenced.

You cannot destroy your home while simultaneously maintaining it. As I wrote before, this is Crashfrog's 'relative' counterargument. If you are Adolf Hitler you would be in favor of the things I find repugnant. I get it. If most people prefer to live in nazi Germany, then I guess I need to get used to wearing brownshirts. However, i also believe, for a number of reasons, people fully support things that are against their best interests. That leaves me flatfooted. My limited response is early education in the areas of critical thinking (remember our debate a long time ago?), conflict and anger management, early science classes, global society comparison, religion/fantasy comparison, etc. But it probably wouldn't help for several generations so maybe we are all doomed.

Do you find him more truthful/insightful than Faux News?

You cannot destroy your home while simultaneously maintaining it. Ringo, your flippant arguments are revealing. I didn't write "bedroom." I wrote 'home." As in 'entire house.' You are attempting to marginalize what Franken is doing, like repainting a closet in your home example. Franken is attacking the constitution, not merely re-window dressing it. Attacking is not the same as supporting the constituion as he took an oath to do. BTW, did I write that Franken took an oath to support the constitution? "Probably"? The only way you could possibly show I am over-the-top in supporting basic rights and liberties is by defending Hitler. "Democracy"??? Do you even know what the constitution and its amendments and my argument is all about? . . .

quote:

---

It is a fundamental principle of American democracy that laws should not be public only when it is convenient for government officials to make them public. They should be public all the time, open to review by adversarial courts, and subject to change by an accountable legislature guided by an informed public. If Americans are not able to learn how their government is interpreting and executing the law then we have effectively eliminated the most important bulwark of our democracy.

​

Alternet.org - 404 Not Found

---

No. he made an oath to support the constitution. He is not allowed to change that part. Do you know what an oath is? Are you saying you are okay with Hitler being merely wrong? No kidding. I concur.Edited by dronester, : Added Wyden's quote

Do you find him more truthful/insightful than Faux News? Do you find him more truthful/insightful than Faux News?

The OP is about Franken. I have brought up his recent vote to attack the 4th amendment. Franken voted AGAINST the Amash NSA Amendment (ends the indiscriminate collection of phone and email records) last Wednesday.Are you arguing this recent specific vote is against a provision of the constitution which is unfair?

Dem Senator Ron Wyden's article (below) is a must read for anybody who supports liberties and rights. The american people have been and are continuing to be deceived by the government. When the Bush Jr administration did this, liberals were all angry. Now where is everyone when Obama does it? Just the sounds of crickets?

quote:

---

The combination of increasingly advanced technology with a breakdown in the checks and balances that limit government action could lead us to a surveillance state that cannot be reversed.

---

quote:

---

Ron, how can the law be secret? When you guys pass laws that’s a public deal. I’m going to look them up online. In response, I tell Oregonians that there are effectively two Patriot Acts the first is the one that they can read on their laptop in Medford or Portland, analyze and understand. Then there’s the real Patriot Actthe secret interpretation of the law that the government is actually relying upon. The secret rulings of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court have interpreted the Patriot Act, as well as section 702 of the FISA statute, in some surprising ways, and these rulings are kept entirely secret from the public. These rulings can be astoundingly broad.

---

quote:

---

It is a fundamental principle of American democracy that laws should not be public only when it is convenient for government officials to make them public. They should be public all the time, open to review by adversarial courts, and subject to change by an accountable legislature guided by an informed public. If Americans are not able to learn how their government is interpreting and executing the law then we have effectively eliminated the most important bulwark of our democracy.

---

quote:

---

Outside the names of the FISA court judges, virtually everything else is secret about the court. Their rulings are secret, which makes challenging them in an appeals court almost impossible. Their proceedings are secret too, but I can tell you that they are almost always onesided.

---

quote:

---

. . . not only were the existence of and the legal justification for these programs kept completely secret from the American people, senior officials from across the government were making statements to the public about domestic surveillance that were clearly misleading and at times simply false.

---

Alternet.org - 404 Not Found

But it seems only when using a quantifier, "when the constitution has some provision which is unfair," can you demonstrate my argument is possibly invalid.Since Franken's vote against the constitution does NOT have a provision which is unfair, I have demonstrated in this specific case, that he cannot support and attack the constitution at the same time.PS, congrats to having an ethical congresswoman. Most americans should be envious.

Yes, thanks for correcting me, I was conflating Franken's open support with spying on Americans in direct violation of the fourth amendment with the recent Amash NSA Amendment.Yes, I have read Franken's weak reasoning why he supports spying on americans in direct violation of the fourth amendment. And I am tired of 'big daddy's' fear tactics which always amounts to this:

quote:

---

. . . the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

​

Hermann Gring

---

So I simply ask, instead of needing to violate the fourth amendment, and many others, in the never-ending fight against 'terrorists', why doesn't america simply stop doing things that cause 'terrorists' to want to harm us?: Support of fanatical and violent actions of Israel over Palestine, support of fundamentalist dictators like fanatical human rights-violating Saudi Arabia, world hegemony of building military bases in every corner of the world, invasions of countries for their energy resources, crippling economic sanctions that murder children, etc, ?Stopping these things would cost no money or violation of rights and liberties. America would go on to win the hearts and minds throughout the world. But, nooo, instead, Franken and his fellow nazis want to merely tweak a secret criminal system so that america can continue its imperial ways.Screw that!I did like Franken in the past, but the saying about absolute power corrupts is true, even for former clowns.

There is irony of you needing to put "destroying" in quotes while questioning if I am being deliberately disingenuous.Though you and Rahvin dislike my absolutist argument, you and him seem to be straining to come up with a satisfying counter-argument that broadly fits.I wrote: One cannot support the constitution (as Franken stated in his oath) and attack it at the same time.Franken is neither attacking the constitution to make it better as Rahvin's example suggested, nor is he attacking the constitution, even in portions, to renovate it, or to repair it, or to criticize it, as you have suggested. (Unless you use an extreme example of relativism, i.e., Hitler wants to 'improve' the constitution by creating a secret police state)Yes, the amendments/constitituion is amendable. And that is done by a legal process. But that is NOT what Franken is doing. Franken solemnly swore that he will support the Constitution of the United States. Yet, Franken continues to support illegal and secret police-state behavior by the government. If america is a land of laws and democracy, Franken is attacking it. Indubitably, violating the fourth amendment. I trust you're not going to extend your debate to Argumentum ad populum. Perhaps you missed my last-second edit to my post, it might prove helpful. Take heed, this is going off-topic, so create a new thread if you want to raise more questions about democracy. . .

quote:

---

It is a fundamental principle of American democracy that laws should not be public only when it is convenient for government officials to make them public. They should be public all the time, open to review by adversarial courts, and subject to change by an accountable legislature guided by an informed public. If Americans are not able to learn how their government is interpreting and executing the law then we have effectively eliminated the most important bulwark of our democracy.

​

Alternet.org - 404 Not Found

---

Do you know what an oath is? If you've ever made an oath in your life, was it willfully empty? Groan. I am on Federal Grand Jury duty for 18 MONTHS! (GROOOAN!!!) It's an endless procession of cases presented with legal double-talk by slick lawyers that strain definitions of words and actions. So, strained words, definitions, and special pleadings especially irritate me these days. If there may be technical difficulties in trying a monster like Hitler, I would mostly be sad to hear about them. US director of national intelligence James Clapper had lied to congress. That is a felony offense. At the least, the Obama administration should have fired his ass. It seems people like Bush Jr. and Cheney and James Clapper CAN almost always be tried for crimes, but they never are.Let me read somewhere that Franken wants Clapper tried for lying to congress.Edited by dronester, : added: Franken wants Clapper tried for lying to congress.

Huh?Actually we do.Read Franken's words here:Opinion: We need transparency on domestic surveillance | CNNTalk about disingenuous, he knew the National Security Agency secretly gathered personal data on Americans since 2007 , including their internet use and cell phone service. It is only now, AFTER Snowden revealed the secret spying program on americans in violation of the fourth amendment that Franken NOW wants to simply make it slightly more transparent. Ugh! Yes, and Franken wants a similar type of 'better world.' What part of that is not scaring you? Huh?the National Security Agency HAS BEEN secretly gathering personal data on Americans since 2007, a violation of the fourth amendment, including their internet use and cell phone service. Now who is being an absolutist? Sheesh, they even found tax-evasion to convict Al Capone, I should think there must be something, SOMETHING to convict Hitler. Go ahead, create a new thread/topic, it might be interesting. Yeaaah, like Clapper being tried for lying to congress.

It seems to be slightly less popular in today's Germany.