Washington, DC – The American Civil Liberties Union today slammed the U.S. Senate for not only authorizing the president’s warrantless wiretapping program but for granting immunity to his accomplices, the telecommunications companies. By a vote of 68 to 29, the Senate passed legislation amending and, in the end, gutting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The bill now must be conferenced with the House’s version of the bill – which contains no immunity and stricter Fourth Amendment protections – by February 16th, the recently extended expiration date of the equally disastrous Protect America Act.

“The Senate had multiple opportunities to improve this atrocious bill and failed at every turn,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Several amendments were offered to increase privacy protections, with many of them allowing for warrantless surveillance during emergency situations. It’s stunning that senators wouldn’t put their support behind amendments so fundamentally balanced. Protecting Americans’ communications from pervasive and ill-defined surveillance goes to the very heart of the Fourth Amendment. Unfortunately, the Senate seemed determined to pass the least constitutional FISA bill possible.”

During debate of the FISA Amendments Act of 2007, Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT) offered two amendments to impose stricter privacy guidelines for Americans’ communications but both amendments were voted down. Senator Dodd also led a movement against immunity but was ultimately overtaken.

“Senators Feingold and Dodd deserve kudos for their attempts to help make this awful Senate bill more palatable,” said Fredrickson. “Though many questions still remain unanswered about years of domestic spying, the Senate has effectively sealed the vault by handing over immunity to the phone companies. The over forty legitimate lawsuits currently pending against them may end before they’ve begun. It’s a fact that Americans had their rights violated and now, by closing the courtroom door, they may be left with no recourse. The Senate failed us with this vote. It is a major step backward both for Americans’ privacy and the Constitution.”

To read more about the ACLU’s work on FISA, go to:
www.aclu.org/fisa

The California Public Policy Institute recent survey on CA residents and Information technology:

• Less than half of California Latinos (48%) have home computers compared to about eight in 10 or more for whites (86%), Asians (84%), and blacks (79%). Just four in 10 Latinos (40%) have Internet access and a third (34%) a broadband connection at home.
• Among households with incomes under $40,000, half have home computers, but only four in 10 (40%) have home Internet access and just a third (33%) have broadband.
• Twenty-nine percent of Californians have DSL, 19 percent have cable modems, 5 percent have wireless, and 2 percent have fiber optic or T-1 connections. Just 7 percent have dial-up connections.

This is the 87th PPIC Statewide Survey and the first in the Californians and Information Technology survey series, whose intent is to inform state policymakers, encourage discussion, and raise public awareness about a variety of information technology issues. This survey includes the responses of 2,503 Californians in multiple languages, on both landline and cell phones, and was conducted in collaboration with the California Emerging Technology Fund.

For the full report click HERE

Co-chairs: James A. Baker, III and Warren Christopher

We urge that in the first 100 days of the next presidential Administration, the President and Congress work jointly to enact the War Powers Consultation Act of 2009 to replace the impractical and ineffective War Powers Resolution of 1973. The Act we propose places its focus on ensuring that Congress has an opportunity to consult meaningfully with the President about signifi cant armed confl icts and that Congress expresses its views. We believe this new Act represents not only sound public policy, but a pragmatic approach that both the next President and Congress can and should endorse.

The need for reform stems from the gravity and uncertainty posed by war powers questions. Few would dispute that the most important decisions our leaders make involve war. Yet after more than 200 years of constitutional history, what powers the respective branches of government possess in making such decisions is still heavily debated. The Constitution provides both the President and Congress with explicit grants of war powers, as well as a host of arguments for implied powers. How broadly or how narrowly to construe these powers is a matter of ongoing debate. Indeed, the Constitution’s framers disputed these very issues in the years following the Constitution’s ratifi cation, expressing contrary views about the respective powers of the President, as “Commander in Chief,” and Congress, which the Constitution grants the power “To declare War.”

To read the full report published by the Miller Center of Public Affairs CLICK HERE

The Center for Governmental Studies, as part of its Democracy by Initiative project, has published an article on online signature gathering. CGS stops short of endorsing the proposal but discusses some of the pros and cons:

One approach to balancing the influence of money in qualifying initiatives would be to let registered voters sign initiative petitions on a computer and transmit their signatures over the Internet to be counted toward the required total, so long as proper authentication and other security procedures were followed. This could help level the playing field for less-well-funded groups who could mobilize voter support via the Internet as an alternative to paying petition circulators the going rate — two dollars and up per signature. Online petition signing could also enhance public discourse about ballot measures through interactive online commentary and discussions.Others have voiced objections to online signature gathering on the grounds that insecure computers or communications links could lead to large-scale fraud in signing initiative petitions; that voters without computers and Internet access would be disadvantaged; and that online signing would make qualifying initiatives too easy and thus deluge voters with many more ballot measures at each election.

It’s an interesting idea. Certainly it would be valuable in combating the dirty tricks signature gatherers use to get people to sign, where they typically obscure the actual meaning or intent of a proposed initiative. Online signature gathering would enable voters to better understand what they’re signing - though whether that’ll acutally happen or not is an open question.

To counter the likelihood that this would produce more initiatives on the ballot, CGS suggested raising the number of signatures required to qualify an initiative. And of course there are security concerns to be considered - with the possibility that more secure methods would be more off-putting to potential online signers.

Here are the CA ballot measures that have qualified for the November election:

Prop. 1 - High Speed Rail

Prop. 2 - Treatment of Farm Animals

Prop. 3 - Children’s Hospital Bond

Prop. 4 - Parental Notification

Prop. 5 - Parole and Rehab of Nonviolent Offenders

Prop. 6 - Tough on Crime

Prop. 7 - Renewable Energy

Prop. 8 - Marriage Protection Act

Prop. 9 - Victims Rights and Parole

Prop. 10 - Alternative Fuels and Renewable Energy Bonds

Prop. 11 - Redistricting

Watch this blog for more information on these California ballot measures

COMMENTARY
By Mark Landsbaum, The Orange County Register

U.S. energy policy has been held hostage by the environmental lobby for decades. There’s a 27-year ban on offshore drilling and an even longer drought in bringing new refineries online, while vast amounts of oil beneath the ground are “protected” by government drilling restrictions. But America may be reaching the price point that will release the green squeeze on black gold.

Remember way back in 1995 when President Clinton vetoed a bill that would have permitted drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? One excuse environmentalists offered in Clinton’s defense was that ANWR oil couldn’t be brought to market for 10 years. In other words, “Why bother?”

Remember the $1.15 per gallon you paid for gasoline in 1995?

How much do you pay today? $4? $4.50? Is it $5 yet? Can you imagine $6 or $7? In Europe, they can. The price per gallon there varies today from almost $9 a gallon to almost $10. At this rate, double-digit gasoline is not far off. (Remember those numbers the next time someone running for office speaks highly of the European way of doing things.)

There are 10 billion to 16 billion barrels of untapped oil in ANWR, the equivalent of nearly two years’ supply at the pump, based on how much Americans consume. Put another way, it’s the equivalent of about 20 years of oil imports from Saudi Arabia. That’s enough to fuel every car and truck in California – are you ready for this? – for about 50 years.

For the full OC Register editorial click HERE