<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Convictions : Arlen Specter</title><link>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/Arlen+Specter/default.aspx</link><description>Tags: Arlen Specter</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.2)</generator><item><title>Arlen Specter:  "Read the Constitution?  That's a court's job, not a Senator's"</title><link>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/07/10/arlen-specter-read-the-constitution-that-s-a-court-s-job-not-a-senator-s.aspx</link><pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:41:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">b38b617e-fbf1-4816-b2a6-f11ec83af8cb:3307</guid><dc:creator>Adam J. White</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/comments/3307.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/commentrss.aspx?PostID=3307</wfw:commentRss><description>&lt;P&gt;This week's passage and enactment of the FISA amendments (&lt;A class="" href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.06304:"&gt;H.R. 6304&lt;/A&gt;)&amp;nbsp;was not without controversy (obviously), but I was particularly struck by an aspect of the story that's received remarkably little attention:&amp;nbsp; Sen. Arlen Specter &lt;A class="" href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&amp;amp;session=2&amp;amp;vote=00165"&gt;sponsored an amendment&lt;/A&gt; (&lt;A class="" href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP5059:"&gt;S.Amdt.5059&lt;/A&gt;) to the particularly controversial grant of immunity to telecoms that had worked with NSA; under his amendment, such immunity would have been contingent upon a court's&amp;nbsp;determination that&amp;nbsp;the&amp;nbsp;telecom's activities were&amp;nbsp;"provided in connection with an intelligence activity that violated the Constitution of the United States."&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;What a spectacle:&lt;/STRONG&gt; a United States Senator -- &lt;EM&gt;a former prosecutor and the senior Republican on the S&lt;/EM&gt;e&lt;EM&gt;nate Judiciary Committee, no less!&lt;/EM&gt; -- effectively declared himself to be incapable of determining what the Constitution does and does not proscribe.&amp;nbsp; (Of course, Senator Specter was not alone:&amp;nbsp; &lt;A class="" href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&amp;amp;session=2&amp;amp;vote=00165"&gt;37 senators voted for his ill-conceived amendment&lt;/A&gt;.)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Specter's attempt to pass the buck on this constitutional question should disturb both proponents and critics of the NSA surveillance activities at issue.&amp;nbsp; That said, and &lt;A class="" href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/494exrpu.asp"&gt;as I've noted previously&lt;/A&gt;, Senator Specter's approach to the issue of the constitutionality of NSA surveillance activities is but one example of his tendency to (1) punt controversial issues to the courts, yet (2)&amp;nbsp;loudly chastise the courts for "denigrat[ing] ... congressional authority" when the politics winds suit the change in approach.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.slate.com/blogs/aggbug.aspx?PostID=3307" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/fisa/default.aspx">fisa</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/Arlen+Specter/default.aspx">Arlen Specter</category></item></channel></rss>