Obama's FISA stance is 'reluctant.' He doesn't want to give those big bad law breaking telecomms immunity. No he doesn't. But he reluctantly must. He must, don't you see. He must because he must spy on Americans without warrants so we will be safe from ... something. Not safe from being spied upon secretly, whenever, with out warrants or recourse, but safe from ... something. Something the government, including Obama, wants us to be safe from. But that's OK because it's Obama and we TRUST (with a capital T and that rhymes with P and that stand for patootie) him and we're sure he, and not McCain, will be elected so that it will be Obama's administration who is spying on us and not the McCain administration.
So even if Obama votes to undermine core Constitutional principles it's OK because his vote doesn't necessarily mean he shares Bush's disrespect of the Constitution:
2. Is it fair to extrapolate the position to fully undermine the core principle?
Consider Obama's position in offering reluctant support for the FISA bill even though he disagrees with the provision effectively granting immunity to telecom companies.
Core principles of constitutional check and balances, as well as privacy rights, are involved. But does Obama's vote necessarily mean he shares Bush's disrespect of the Constitution, and would act in a similar unconstitutional manner if he assumed the presidency?
Oh, I feel so much better now. I see the light. We don't need no stinking Constitution. We have Obama. Yae ...
I do have one little question. Will Obama put the Constitution back together before he leaves office?
No comments:
Post a Comment