ACLU Urges Watch On Lame Duck Congress
Posted on November 13, 2006
Liberals heed the warning issued by the ACLU. The “new direction” of surrender and granting rights to our enemies could be threatened by the evil, civil liberty hating Republican controlled lame duck Congress before the liberals officially take control. Don’t underestimate the evil Bushitler and the Rethuglicans. Don’t buy into that “bi-partisanship” double talk. They will try to sneak through some evil anti-civil liberties stuff secretly designed to strip you of your freedoms all under the guise of National Security while they still retain some power. The ACLU has an important message, “Just Say No!”
The American Civil Liberties Union Monday urged a “Just Say No” agenda for the lame-duck session of the U.S. Congress this week.
The ACLU in a statement warned that the Bush administration and the Republican majorities in the outgoing 109th Congress might try to push through potentially far-reaching legislation this week before the new Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives and Senate meet for the first time. The GOP lost control of both houses in the Nov. 7 midterm cognressional elections.
The ACLU warns that the 109th Congress may vote on some “key” issues between its return and adjournment. One particular issue of concern for the ACLU is that Bush has made it clear his intentions to push through legislation that would legalize his illegal program of spying on ordinary Americans. Don’t believe the hype about it only being foreign telephone calls to suspected terrorists. Bush is intent on invading ordinary citizens privacy in order to set up his internment camps for those that oppose him and ultimately a Christian Theocracy stripped of all Constitutional Rights.
O.K. They didn’t say all that. I’m exaggerating. I bet I had some moonbats going there though. I know there are some that paranoid. But the ACLU did give warning.
The director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, Caroline Fredrickson, and ACLU Legislative Counsel Timothy D. Sparapani held a press conference Monday to discuss what they described as “concerns with potential upcoming legislative action.”
The ACLU said in its statement that it was advocating a “Just Say No” agenda for the lame duck session.
So, listen up liberal Congress critters! The ACLU has declared this election a mandate for themselves and their agenda. They are one of your most important special interest groups. Don’t screw this up for them or they might go back to pretending they are non-partisan. You know what the ACLU opposes. If it is good for the country you should vote against it. Don’t try to be sly, the ACLU is keeping score cards. The ACLU has spoken so you best listen. “Just say no!”
footnote: If you thought I was actually advocating what the ACLU is saying then my sarcasm sucks and I need to work on it.
» Filed Under ACLU, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
16 Responses to “ACLU Urges Watch On Lame Duck Congress”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
It’s not a bad policy. There are very few circumstances where a lame duck session should result in significant legislation. At this point, their job is to tie up some loose ends and go home because the country has made it clear that this congress no longer represents us. You certainly wouldn’t want the Dems to raise taxes or launch a social program in November ‘08.
I really don’t think the ACLU has much to worry about Jeff. I wouldn’t count on this Congress to pass anything significant anyway. On another note…I’ve got a good slogan for my policy now. Just Say No to the ACLU!
I don’t expect much to happen either, but crazier things have happened.
It’s a catchy slogan, but I hope it doesn’t reflect your actual policy. If your policy is merely “I’m against anything my opponent is for”, what happens if/when your opponent is actually right about something? I know it seems unlikely or impossible from your perspective, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally.
It’s best to decide on your core beliefs and draw your conclusions from there. It’s a heck of a lot easier to take consistent positions when they are all derived from the same set of principles.
P.S. If you have already done so, I would be very interested to hear which principles you hold dear.
“Bush is intent on invading ordinary citizens privacy in order to set up his internment camps for those that oppose him and ultimately a Christian Theocracy stripped of all Constitutional Rights.”
Unfortunately, this is pretty close to what the Dems have been whining hysterically about since 2000.
“It’s not a bad policy. There are very few circumstances where a lame duck session should result in significant legislation. At this point, their job is to tie up some loose ends and go home because the country has made it clear that this congress no longer represents us.”
No it isn’t. It is their job to do what they can to represent what their voters wanted until they are ousted.
“You certainly wouldn’t want the Dems to raise taxes or launch a social program in November ‘08.”
Like we really believe that as long as the outgoing Congress rolls over and plays dead, that the socialist loving Democrats will reward them by not seeking higher taxes to fund their socialist programs. If you believe that I can show you some premium developmental land to buy in the Flordia Everglades.
“It’s a catchy slogan, but I hope it doesn’t reflect your actual policy. If your policy is merely “I’m against anything my opponent is for”, what happens if/when your opponent is actually right about something? I know it seems unlikely or impossible from your perspective, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally.”
In these post 9/11 days we can’t afford for the “blind Democrat” to get it right on National Security and the threat our enemy poses “occasionally”.
I disagree. It is their job to represent their constituents at any given time. In a perfect world, there wouldn’t even be lameduck sessions, but the reality is that it takes time to transition to the new legislature. This reality in no way implies that it is ethical to push legislation that runs counter to your constituents wishes.
Yeah, with a couple choruses of Kumbayah for good measure. Nah, I was suggesting just the opposite. There is a longstanding tradition of not pushing significant legislation during lameduck sessions. If this congress breaks it, you can be very sure that next one won’t have any qualms about it either.
Even if your pessimism is accurate, it has nothing to do with my point that one should choose his or her positions based on his or her own principles, rather than simply opposing every position of the enemy.
“Even if your pessimism is accurate, it has nothing to do with my point that one should choose his or her positions based on his or her own principles, rather than simply opposing every position of the enemy.”
Exactly. Which is why it’s more about standing by principles instead of “making peace” with blind Democrats, especially when it comes to National Security, and The War On Terror.
You are right that congressmen should represent their constituents all the time, which, by the way, includes up to the time they leave office.
They owe the Democrats much better civility at office turn over time then say, Clinton’s staff displayed at changeover.
But, that’s it. It is not at all necessary for the remaining Republican Congress to cede to Democrat wishes.
Your notion of Democrats respecting the “long standing tradition of not pushing legislation during a lame duck session” is laughable. Especially, after them not being in power for two dreaded terms.
No, the Democrat party’s whining and temper tantrums since 2000 speak volumes about their character, or shall we say, lack thereof.
I say the lame duck Republican congress should at least finally do something while they can, if they ever want to restore the faith of their voting constituents.
How does one go about representing constituents after being fired?
“How does one go about representing constituents after being fired? ”
It’s my understanding that they aren’t out until January. Right?
The effective date is in January, but the decision has already been made. Maybe your experiences have been different, but I have never been entrusted with an important project after the decision has been made to cease a business relationship. If there was any lameduck period at all, it was meant only to provide documentation and training in an effort to smooth the transition for all parties.
kind of like the smooth transition the Dems in Clinton’s admin gave to the incoming Bush admin. Right?
“Maybe your experiences have been different, but I have never been entrusted with an important project after the decision has been made to cease a business relationship.”
This isn’t a business relationship. This is Congress. In case in your experience you never noticed. ; )
Irrelevant on three grounds:
1. You’re referring to a transition of the executive branch which doesn’t create legislation.
2. To the best of my knowledge, none of the problems with the transition involved significant legislation
3. Even if the goal of providing a smooth transition wasn’t accomplished to its fullest potential, they still came closer than they would have if they tried to transition immediately after the election results were certified.
a?nal?o?gy?–noun
1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based
5. Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.
Nice try on the dictionary lesson, but it was you who insisted upon the whole “transition responsibility”.
Therefore, my analogy stands.
If the Republicans owe the Democrats a “transition preparation” then, they can look no further than the Clinton administration’s example as to what is expected. Right?
Oh, and again…since you conveniently keep ignoring it, the Democrats don’t have a history of doing the admirable thing that you are calling for, “transition assistance”, hence again, my Clinton Administration’s turn over to the White House analogy.
You see, you can cite dictionary definitions all you want, as long as you remain on the outskirts of what I am talking about. Right?
God forbid you actually stick to the subject you yourself introduced.
I’m not talking about who owes whom what. The lame-duck period is a transition period, nothing more, nothing less. As such, anyone presiding over a lame-duck period is ethically obligated to confine their activities to the bare necessities. but…
Yeah, they can use that as an example if they feel compelled to. They can start all the petty squabbles they want as long as they don’t take on legislation that should wait for the incoming congress.
You introduced it in comment 6. I ignored it at the time because I didn’t feel it was an accurate analogy. You reintroduced it in comment 11 and I have now responded directly to it in comments 13 and 16.
I’ve stated my position in full. You’ve stated yours. The horse is sufficiently dead, so I’m not going to comment further on this thread. Feel free to add a summation if you wish; I will do you the courtesy of reading it, but I cannot take the time to respond further.
I enjoyed the discussion.
“The horse is sufficiently dead, so I’m not going to comment further on this thread. Feel free to add a summation if you wish; I will do you the courtesy of reading it, but I cannot take the time to respond further.”
I know. You can’t take it further because you can’t respond to it in any meaningfully way.
Dully noted.