9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.
The inaugural Nevada Clean Energy Summit will emphasize the importance of clean energy development to Nevada and U.S. energy independence and will illustrate that Nevada is an ideal location for performing renewable energy research, manufacturing renewable energy systems, and generating renewable energy for the western United States. The event will feature U.S. Senator Harry Reid, federal, state and local officials, and other special guests. This event is FREE to attend thanks to the support of our sponsors. RSVP required by August 15, 2007. Space is limited.

Also Clyburn has announced in a press release on his congressite that he will be doing the NOLA/Miss. tour.

Elko County Roosevelt/Kennedy Dinner (Progressive Organization)
Roosevelt/Kennedy Fundraising Dinner
with Harry Reid

The Elko County Democratic Party is proud to announce a their Roosevelt/Kennedy dinner with keynote speaker, Democratic Senatorial Majority Leader, Harry Reid.

The dinner is to be held on the evening of August 20th ,2007 (VIP reception at 6PM Dinner at 7PM) at the Western Folk Life Center (501 Railroad Street, Elko Nevada).

Dinner – $250/plate
Table of eight – $2000
Dinner and VIP reception – $300/Plate
Table of eight & VIP Reception – $2400

Local Contact:
For more information or to purchase tickets, please contact Kristian Forland: kforland@elkocountydemocrats.org
Time: Monday, August 20 at 6:00 PM
Duration: 4 hours
Host: Kristian Forland
Location: Western Folk Life Center (Elko, NV) 501 Railroad Street

Protesters to Pelosi: Reset the Table

Stamford, Connecticut, Aug.6-More than thirty picketers will rally outside a local restaurant this Thursday, Aug. 9, when Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi meets with high-ranking state Democrats.

The topic: the Congressional effort to impeach President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Last November Pelosi said: “Impeachment is off the table.”

Now, the Connecticut Impeachment Movement demands that Pelosi reset the table by supporting Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich’s House Resolution 333. (See http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/int3.pdf).

By rallying outside of Il Falco, 65 Broad Street, Stamford, from noon to 1:30 pm this Thursday, those backing the impeachment effort hope to impress upon Pelosi and other Democrats that mainstream Democrats and independents support the effort. The demonstrators are members and supporters of the Connecticut Impeachment Movement, a grassroots movement which chapters in several towns, including Stamford, Westport and West Hartford.

Pelosi is expected to attend a fundraiser for Rep. Chris Murphy of Chesire at the restaurant this Thursday. Other Democrats expected to be in attendance: Mayor Dan Malloy, Ellen Camhi, George Jepsen, State Rep. Gerry Fox, State Rep. Carlo Leone, State Senator Andrew McDonald, Steve & Sue Mandel, Chip & Jan Raymond, Jean Rexford, Gene Rostov, State Rep. Jim Shapiro, Ann Sheffer & Bill Sheffler, Edward Spilka, Charlotte Suhler, State Rep. William Tong and State Rep. Christel Truglia.

The impeachment effort is gaining momentum.
· Conservative Republican constitutional scholar Bruce Fein has endorsed the campaign.
· A public opinion poll from the American Research Group reported that more than four in ten Americans – 45% – favor impeachment hearings for President Bush and more than half – 54% – favored impeachment for Vice President Cheney.
· The Democratic State Central Committee plans to vote on impeachment September 26.

For further information contact: Richard Duffee at richard@ctimpeach.org
or 203-588-0161.

Still no response from Emmanuel’s press team on my request for a calendar of appearances.

hmmmm

Siun and Melissa @ 54 and all, in case you missed this comment from some threads back:

scott says:
August 8th, 2007 at 4:47 am

Rahm Emanuel will be at La Villa Restaurant and Banquets, 3638 North Pulaski Road, Chicago, Il on Tuesday, 8/14/07 between 11:30 A.M. to 1:00 P.M.

And to Ninbus @ 193 – THANKS for the report, and to your husband for wading into the fray! Maybe a lesson learned from his experience is to bring a sign, in case one can’t get to the front of the room and into actual contact with the ‘powers that be.’ Something like: RESTORE THE FOURTH! or Sell Not Liberty To Purchase Power, Pelosi.

Anybody who happens to run into Pelosi, ask her: “Does she understand having reservations about this bill, and passing this law is an issue that could be an oath of office question?”

Legislative immunity isn’t absolute. Clearly illegal bills aren’t immune from review. Ask her what her views are on getting prosecuted for not fully asserting her oath. Would be helpful if she commented on 5 USC 3331; and her reasons for admitting there were Constitutional problems with the bill. Sounds like she’s not fully doing her job, asserting her oath; but the opposite: She’s got some mental reservations.

If you do get a response, it would be helpful to post it; and if the Grand Jury asks for it, to be able to provide a transcript and a recording of her response. Thanks.

We already have a version of a response to those points, with regard to Majority Leader Reid. From his prepared statement delivered during the 30 minutes he agreed to for Democratic floor debate on the Senate FISA bills Friday evening:

We have had many conversations in the last several days with Admiral McConnell. I can say with great confidence that this legislation [Rockefeller/Levin] provides him with everything he asked for in these discussions, everything.

He told us he wanted the tool to collect foreign-to-foreign intelligence communications without a warrant. He got it. He told us he wanted the ability to compel compliance from communications providers with liability protection. He got it.

He told us he wanted the ability to collect all foreign intelligence information, not just intelligence related to terrorism. He got it. He told us he wanted the ability to temporarily begin the collection of intelligence without seeking a court order. He even got that.

In fact, the legislation was provided by the administration to Admiral McConnell, and that legislation, he said in a statement today, he strongly supports–which we have heard–served as the starting point for the Levin-Rockefeller legislation. That is what we have before us; it is a modified McConnell amendment.

What we have before us tonight, with very modest edits, is Admiral McConnell’s proposal, what he told us he wanted, and what he gave us in writing.

I would hope it receives the broad support of the Senate. The Bond legislation, on the other hand, is not something I can support. It authorizes, in my opinion, warrantless searches of Americans’ phone calls, e-mails, homes, offices and personal records and for however long it is appealed to the court of review and the Supreme Court takes. This process could take months or indeed years.

Even worse, the search does not have to be directed abroad, just concerning a person abroad, any search, any search inside the United States, the Government can claim to be concerning al-Qaida is authorized. I do not believe that is the right way, the strong way or the Constitutional way to fight the war on terrorism. I urge all Members to support the Rockefeller-Levin bill. – Senator Harry Reid, 8/3/07

The only way to read the italicized portion of this statement, in my opinion, is that Harry Reid knows full well how unConstitutional the Bond/McConnell bill is that he arranged to have pass in the Senate (while trying to keep his fingerprints off it), and that Harry Reid fully expects the Supreme Court to eventually overturn this legislation as unConstitutional somewhere down the road (should anyone manage to achieve standing and avoid a state secrets dismissal of their case).

That’s what you might call passing the Constitutional buck to the Judicial Branch, in open and obvious contravention of one’s oath of office as a member of the Legislative Branch of government. Members of Congress are so politicized anymore, they seem to have decided that “politicians” are exempt from oaths of office and Constitutional restraints. Their only purpose in life has been reduced to winning elections, and only actions that further and obviously serve that purpose are considered their “duty,” to the exclusion of all else, including the oaths they took upon being seated in public office and the fate of the nation’s system of governance itself.

MarkH @ 196

Law which goes unchallenged is simply enforced, however corrupting or unconstitutional.

I’m going to split some hairs with you on this. An illegal law cannot be lawfully enforced. These issues arise during UCMJ and 42 USC 1983 claims in re military and law enforcement: And they relate to immunity. Something that is clearly illegal, such as an order to violate the Constitution is on its face not enforceable. It’s void. The Congress has no power to pass a bill, nor enact law that targets specific, ongoing litigation. That’s an exercise of judicial power.

This bill incorrectly ignores the 4th Amendment, and illegally deprives the court of judicial review on that very bypass. That violates the Separation of Powers. Even though an act or law may be illegal and unconstitutional, it does not mean that invoking that illegal act is sufficient to justify enforcing it. Rather, a clearly illegal bill, order, act, or rule which does clearly violate the law is one that is not a legal foundation for any defense.

Suppose Congress were to pass an Act that directed the President to violate Geneva, and commit war crimes. The President cannot rely on that act as legal defense; he also cannot invoke his power as Commander in Chief to violate Geneva. Back to your point: To suggest that an unconstitutional act is enforced misses the point: The enforcement of that illegal act is a subsequent offense. The Supreme Law is Supreme, and a clearly illegal act cannot defy the Supreme Law; and is not lawfully enforceable. Rather, the opposite occurs: Personnel who attempt to enforce this illegal act could be prosecuted for refusing to disobey illegal orders.

The bigger problem arises on issues of war crimes: If this act is used as the basis to illegally gather information; and that information is used to support war crimes, the defense of “superior orders” fails when military personnel know, or should know, that the original surveillance was illegal; and the subsequent use of that illegally captured information was used to justify war crimes, rendition, prisoner abuse, or other violations of Geneva. I get concerned when, despite a clearly illegal act, there is this blind deference that the law — until challenged — is enforced; or that illegal act/law is the law of the land. No, it cannot legally defy the Constitution; and that illegal law, however corrupting and unconstitutional, is not a legal foundation to justify ignoring one’s oath of office, Constitutional obligations, and the requirement to fully assert without any mental reservation the duty to defend the Constitution.

A law which is passed does not mean that the law is lawful. Some laws are clearly illegal, contrary to the Supreme law, and cannot be enforced: This is one of those laws. DoJ Staff personnel are on fair notice that any effort to enforce this illegal act, and by pass the warrant requirement, could be the basis to bring war crimes indictments if it is shown that the use of that illegally captured information was illegally used to engage in Geneva violations. I am open to being persuaded that illegal acts of Congress must be enforced; and that illegal acts which order war crimes cannot be challenged; and that illegal acts of Congress which order and direct unlawful activity related to war crimes is a defense. However, I will be hard pressed to embrace that view, or any legal foundation that they can be enforced lawfully. Thank you for considering my views.

One thing I’m wondering: If the DNC Members of Congress are really upset by this FISA bill and the way�the�DNC-Congressional leadership�handled things — again — what’s their plan? Perhaps they could be asked directly: Ever through of working with the GOP-disaffected and both Memberships breaking ranks?

Would like to have the DNC leadership asked: What’s their plan to keep the DNC disaffected Members of Congress under the DNC; and not create a third party? Pelosi seems to believe that her Speakership will be a permanent one. Enough DNC and GOP disaffected could upset things. Is this what she’d prefer? Not really interested in excuses now why this couldn’t happen; more interested in what we might see down the road as the DNC Members of Congress get more reminders that the Congressional leadership in both parties isn’t serious about doing their jobs. The DNC Membership can whine about what “should” be happening; I’d like to see their reaction if they are challenged: “Ever thought of leaving the DNC Party as a Member of Congress and creating an independent caucus in 2007?”

I’d like some kind of tutorial regarding the various components of Democratic leadership.

It’s my understanding that the DNC has relatively little influence on congressional matters and that the DSCC and the DCCC are the organizations that really count, along with various lobbying consortiums like the DLC on domestic policy and A*P*C on security and foreign affairs, especially wrt the mideast and terrorism.

I’m not really sure what the DNC does except plan some aspects of election strategy.

MarkH @ 196

Law which goes unchallenged is simply enforced, however corrupting or unconstitutional.

Perhaps even the worst kind of law is one which is never utilized. It just sits there having an effect on society and can’t be challenged because nobody is charged with it and it never gets to a court where it can be overturned!

But, new laws can be challenged by (I think) a senator who takes it to SCOTUS for immediate review.

Remember the Clinton era Telecommunications bill with the Communications Decency Act embedded by Sensenbrenner? It was challenged by Sen. Byrd IIRC and overturned.

The CDA was indeed struck down in significant part by the Supreme Court, but not as you suggest. The case was Reno v. ACLU and emanated out of the EDPA to the SC in the normal way, not by direct challenge by Senator Byrd.

I’ll ask the question — maybe I’m missing teh point and this has been answered, forgive me.

What’s stopping any of the Senators from doing just that, and challenging this FISA bill; and why wasn’t this done before the Bill was passed by the Senate: Aren’t the anonymous holds possible; or is that only possible in other situations.

Overall, I fail to undrstand how any bill that effectively ignores the 4th Amendment is enforceable.

Would like to have the DNC leadership asked: What’s their plan to keep the DNC disaffected Members of Congress under the DNC; and not create a third party? Pelosi seems to believe that her Speakership will be a permanent one. Enough DNC and GOP disaffected could upset things. Is this what she’d prefer? Not really interested in excuses now why this couldn’t happen; more interested in what we might see down the road as the DNC Members of Congress get more reminders that the Congressional leadership in both parties isn’t serious about doing their jobs. The DNC Membership can whine about what “should” be happening; I’d like to see their reaction if they are challenged: “Ever thought of leaving the DNC Party as a Member of Congress and creating an independent caucus in 2007?”