It's very exciting...

On March 28, 1834, the United States Senate voted to censure President Andrew Jackson, saying, "Resolved that the President in the late Executive proceedings in relation to the public revenue, has assumed upon himself authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both." [emphasis mine]. Jackson had refused to provide documents pertaining to his plan to remove the government funds from an account at the privately run Bank of the United States.

Censure is provided for in the constitution as a way of scolding Senators and Representatives in the House. There is nothing in the constitution allowing for censure of a President but that didn't stop Congress from officially scolding Andrew Jackson in 1834 (although the censure was expunged from the record three years later). The precedent has been set.

Today, Senator Feingold announced that he will introduce a resolution to censure President Bush for misleading the American public about the legality of the NSA's secret wire-tapping program. It would also scold the president for directly breaking the law by authorizing the program; using powers not directly given him by the constitution and in violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

For those of you that don't know, the NSA program authorized by Bush allows the NSA to eavesdrop on the international phone conversations and emails of American citizens without a warrant if those people are suspected of having ties to a terrorist organization. Nobody ever really says what constitutes the suspicion. According to the administration, FISA is too clunky. FISA allows these wiretaps and interceptions after a warrant has been issued from a special Intelligence court. The program that he authorized smacks of 'Big Brother' and, as it was totally secret didn't even have a real mechanism providing oversight. In short, it's scary shit that has grave potential to invade our privacy.

Naturally the Republicans had a response to Feingold. Senator Frist is quoted as saying, "The signal that it sends, that there is in any way a lack of support for our commander in chief who is leading us with a bold vision in a way that is making our homeland safer, is wrong,". Apparently, nobody showed Frist Bush's current ratings: only 34% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing as President and 50% of Americans think he's doing a lousy job "handling the campaign against terrorism" (according to a CBS poll). It seems to me that there is a very clear lack of support, thereby negating Frist's complaint about the censure. For some time now there have been reports of the dissatisfaction Republican members of Congress feel for Bush.

The really interesting question is the political fallout this could have for Feingold. I for one have never been more proud to be from Wisconsin but whether that sentiment rings for many is unclear. Feingold has largely been rumored to be considering a 2008 run for President. I think he'd be great but really, will the country elect a twice-divorced, currently single, Jewish, northern, liberal-Democrat? Is Feingold perhaps giving up on the Presidency with this censure resolution or is he showing his strength? Or, as I like to think, is he merely a good man doing what he should do despite the possible political fallout? Regardless of his goodness, we'll see how brave his colleagues are when it comes time to vote on the censure. Being an election year, many of the Democrats may not wish to sign their name to something so potentially huge. Many of the Republicans may wish however to sign on as a way of showing their distance from Bush. Oooh, I'm excited and I'm rooting for Feingold. You may wish to contact him and offer your support: (202) 224-5323 Or, contact your senator and express your wish for him or her to support the resolution by going here: http://contactcongress.blogspot.com/. They're your representatives, tell them your views.