Mar 6, 2006 - On its face, it appeared an odd decision for a banker, to turn down business on a principle that most people don’t think much about. And so far, the banking giants haven’t seen fit to follow the lead of BB&T Corp.’s John Allison, who declared in January that the nation’s ninth-largest bank would no longer make loans to developers who planned to build commercial projects on land seized from private citizens through the power of eminent domain.
"We happen to believe in the fundamental concept of individual rights, and one of those is property rights," Allison said. "If that is jeopardized, our entire financial system is also in jeopardy." The prospect of losing out on a few loans, or taking a stand alone, hasn’t shaken Allison’s resolve, and has only added to his reputation as a banker whose thoughts routinely stray to the philosophical. By Paul Nowell, AP
Read NC Banker leads against land seizures

Sep 21, 2005 - The panel is considering one of several congressional proposals that would bar federal money from construction projects that benefit from the Supreme Court ruling.

State and national lawmakers are moving quickly to blunt the effects of the Supreme Court's Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., decision. In that 5-4 ruling, the justices said municipalities have broad power to bulldoze people's homes in favor of private development to generate tax revenue. By Jesse J Holland, Associated Press
Read Eminent Domain on Senate's Agenda

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruling breaks new ground for eminent domain. The developers and the wealthy appear to the the primary beneficiaries of this new ruling and not American homeowners.

But, in fact, a number of prominent Republicans, including Sen. John McCain of Arizona, have criticized Bush and the wiretapping without court warrants as a violation of the law and basic civil liberties. So have other well-known conservatives, including former Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia. Bruce Fein, a lawyer who worked in the Justice Department under President Ronald Reagan, wrote in a commentary in the Washington Times last week that Bush should face "possible impeachment" if the practice is not stopped. By James Stemgold
Read Political opposites aligned against Bush wiretaps
Jan 7, 2006 - As it hunted down tax scofflaws, the Internal Revenue Service collected information on the political party affiliations of taxpayers in 20 states. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., a member of an appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the IRS, said the practice was an “outrageous violation of the public trust” that could undermine the agency’s credibility.
IRS officials acknowledged that party affiliation information was routinely collected by a vendor for several months. They told the vendor last month to screen the information out. According to Murray’s office, the 20 states in which the IRS collected party affiliation information were Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin. By The News Tribune
Read IRS tracked taxpayer's political affiliation
Jan 2, 2006 - Let's focus briefly on what the President has done here. Exactly like Nixon before him, Bush has ordered the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct electronic snooping on communications of various people, including U.S. citizens. That action is unequivocally contrary to the express and implied requirements of federal law that such surveillance of U.S. persons inside the U.S. (regardless of whether their communications are going abroad) must be preceded by a court order. General Michael Hayden, a former director of the NSA and now second in command at the new Directorate of National Intelligence, testified to precisely that point at a congressional hearing in April 2000. In response, the President and his defenders have fallen back on the same rationale used by Nixon, saying essentially, "I am the Commander in Chief; I am responsible for the security of this country; the people expect me to do this; and I am going to do it." But the Supreme Court slapped Nixon's hands when he made the same point in 1972. And it slapped Bush's hands when, after 9/11, he asserted authority to indefinitely detain those he unilaterally deemed "enemy combatants"--without any court access. By Bob Barr, Time Magazine
Read Presidential Snooping Damages the Nation
Dec 20, 2005 - A defiant President Bush said Monday that he didn't need explicit permission from Congress or the courts to establish a secret domestic surveillance program to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists.

At a White House news conference, Bush expressed outrage that the program had become public and vowed to continue it. The president said his constitutional power as commander in chief and the congressional resolution that authorized the use of military force against terrorists gave him the authority to order the eavesdropping.  By Ron Hutcheson
Read Bush asserts Constitution, resolution allowed him to order spying

If anything, his explanation only fueled more anger over the domestic spying, and some legal experts asserted that Bush broke the law on a scale that could warrant his impeachment.
Dec 19, 2005 - Responding to a congressional uproar, the Bush administration said Monday that a secret domestic surveillance program had yielded intelligence results that would not have been available otherwise in the war on terror.

With Democrats and Republicans alike questioning whether President Bush had the legal authority to approve the program, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales argued that Congress had essentially given Bush broad powers to order the domestic surveillance after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

"Our position is that the authorization to use military force which was passed by the Congress shortly after Sept. 11 constitutes that authority," said Gonzales. He called the monitoring "probably the most classified program that exists in the United States government." By Pauline Jelink
Read Gonzales says Congress authorized spying
Nov 6, 2005 - The FBI came calling in Windsor, Conn., this summer with a document marked for delivery by hand. On Matianuk Avenue, across from the tennis courts, two special agents found their man. They gave George Christian the letter, which warned him to tell no one, ever, what it said.
Under the shield and stars of the FBI crest, the letter directed Christian to surrender "all subscriber information, billing information and access logs of any person" who used a specific computer at a library branch some distance away. Christian, who manages digital records for three dozen Connecticut libraries, said in an affidavit that he configures his system for privacy. But the vendors of the software he operates said their databases can reveal the Web sites that visitors browse, the e-mail accounts they open and the books they borrow.