My DINO senator answered me on Censure and here's my reply.

[sinkingfeeling]

I received a reply letter from Sen. Mark Pryor yesterday to my request he co-sponsor Sen. Feingold's resolution.

Basically it stated, "I do not support censure." And then he went on that he wasn't on the Judiciary Committee and that it was their job to take action. So, I wrote him back this morning:

Dear Senator Pryor,

I received your reply yesterday on my request that you support Senator Russ Feingold's Resolution to Censure George W. Bush.

So, you believe the President of the United States does not have to obey the laws written by the Congress nor recognize the Bill of Rights in the Constitution he took an oath to uphold.

Could you explain how your position fits into that quaint concept of democracy versus a dictatorship?

Sincerely,
xxxxx

[darkmaestro019]

1. Ha. C'mon, Pryor. Let's hear it.

:popcorn:

You gotta let us know what form letter he regurgitates to that one--if any!

Like it. Short, and to the point--or perhaps "pointy" would be better?

[iconoclastNYC]

2. DLC Mark Dayton - Bush protector

Isn't it funny that the only Democrat to beat an incumbant Republican in 2002 was Mark Pryor -- one of the DLC's "100 to Watch".

[wtmusic]

3. Post letter?

thanks

[Maraya1969]

4. I LOVE the "could you explain" part. Very good job.

[pat_k]

5. Yes, must ask questions -- can call the Judicial Legislative Assistant

We should all be asking the question "why aren't you co-sponsoring Cnesure" (If support is replaced by "co-sponsor" they can't get away with "I'm not on the Committee" crap).

Challenging their reasons in writing is great, but even better, do it in person or on the phone!

Dialog is far more effective than one way communication. Influence requires back and forth. Without back and forth, the things we tell them in email and calls have a tough time getting through their fog of rationalization.

When you call, or visit, ask for a specific member of the staff -- the Judiciary LA (legislative assistant) is probably the best bet. To get the name, go to congress.org => Your Member of Congress, and then click the Staff Members button. . . .

More, including sample dialog

And here's how to request (and get) a meeting with the Senator or member of the staff:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=869375&mesg_id=875979

[KyuzoGator]

6. The response I got from Bill Nelson said, "I'm waiting for more info"

He won't support censure until he knows more.

[tkmorris]

7. Yeah right Bill

Nelson won't support Censure unless and until 50% +1 of Republicans do. The man is just a scintilla left of Zell.

[pat_k]

8. Challenging the "need more info" rationalization

There's a sample dialog in this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=676532#689323

Members of the Senate who co-sponsor Censure or advocate Impeachment are taking an unassailable principled, moral position. When we realize that any excuse for inaction is a morally untenable rationalization, we can confidently and calmly challenge any excuse they throw at us.

We just need to stick to simple truths and moral positions. No complex legal arguments. No strategic or practical excuses or reasons. It boils down this:

Members of Congress take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

The power to Impeach is vested in Congress and Congress alone.

The Congressional oath and the power to Impeach makes each and every member of Congress uniquely, and individually, responsible to take congressional action when the principles and institutions we established in the Constitution are threatened or violated by officials in the Executive or Judiciary.

By his own admission, George W. Bush ordered the illegal surveillance of Americans without a warrant (violation of 50 USC Sec. 1809--Unauthorized Surveillance).

George W. Bush is continuing the illegal program, claiming that, "unitary authoritarian power" puts him above the law.

Bush's claim to unrestrained power subverts the principles and institutions we established under the Constitution for the United States. While the violation of rights of the Americans that are secretly being spied upon without a warrant is intolerable, it is the claim to unitary power that is truly devastating to our system of government.

Given the gravity and urgency of the threat to our constitutional democracy, members of Congress have a sworn duty to take immediate action to defend the nation.

The grave danger and the necessity for action are easily conveyed to the American people (as Feingold, Harkin, Boxer, and Kerry have demonstrated in interviews). When confronted with the truth, Americans understand that such absolute power is NEVER freely given to a leader; it is only taken by deception or force.

Each day that members of Congress fail to carry out their sworn duty and demand Congressional action, George W. Bush can point to their failure to act as justification for his Un-American and Un-Constitutional claims to power (If his actions were violations wouldn't more members of Congress, who are sworn to act, be demanding Congressional action?)

By providing cover, every member of Congress who fails to act (and every Candidate who fails to take a position that affirms the duty they will take on as a member of congress) is aiding and abetting Bush's efforts to unilaterally override the will of the people, which is codified in the resolutions and laws enacted by Congress.

The Congressional oath is an INDIVIDUAL oath that calls on each member to make personal decisions. When it comes to supporting and defending the Constitution, it doesn't matter what other members do or do not do; it doesn't matter what they think their chances are of successfully recruting other members to join them.

The decisions that face each member right now are:

1. Does George W. Bush's claim to "unitary authoritarian executive" power subvert the principles and institutions established in the Constitution?
   
   Just as the Congressional oath is an individual oath, the judgment must be an individual judgment based on the available information and the intent of the law. The power to Impeach (or pass judgment with Censure) is vested in Congress for a reason.
   
   Members cannot escape responsibility by trying to foist the judgment onto the judiciary. (If we wanted the judiciary to accuse and remove elected officials who subvert the Constitution, we would have vested the power to Impeach in the Judiciary.)
   
   Given the irrefutable prima fascia case that George W. Bush is violating our constitutional principles and institutions by exercising power we explicitly deny him under the law, any claim that George W. Bush's actions are not a threat to our constitutional democracy will not withstand challenge or scrutiny.


2. Duty or Complicity?
   
   Members who recognize that George W. Bush is subverting Constitutional principles and institutions can chose to remain silent and complicit or to fulfill their oath and advocate Censure (an attempt to force Bush to return the law) or Removal (Impeachment).