When our Founding Fathers wrote and ratified the Constitution, the main elements that were of most import were the inherent freedoms of speech, the press and religion. On a par with those freedoms, they intended for there to be a series of checks and balances so that no branch of the government grew too big and powerful. The Legislative Branch (Congress) makes the laws, the Executive Branch (the president) signs them into law after review and the Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) interprets them or decides the constitutionality of each. It's a process that has worked for over two hundred years and has worked well.

Enter those two judicial geniuses Senators Arlen Specter (RINO-PA) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). They don't think the newest members of the court are doing things exactly as they would like and they want to question them about it.

First Specter:

"There are things he has said, and I want to see how well he has complied with it," Specter said, singling out Roberts.

Specter is an attorney and as such knows exactly what the decisions mean and how they complied with what John Roberts told the Judiciary Committee. Specter, as is his wont, is carrying water for his Democratic brethren and handing the Democrats one hell of a campaign issue. Thank you Senator Specter.

Now Durbin:

"Certainly Justice Roberts left a distinct impression of his service as chief justice. And his performance on the court since, I think, has been in conflict with many of the statements he has made privately, as well as to the committee," said Durbin, who was unaware of Specter's idea.

"They are off to a very disturbing start, these two new justices. I am afraid before long they will call into question some of the most established laws and precedents in our nation."

This is not just politically annoying, it is chilling.

Recent calls for reinstating the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" has prompted members of Congress, talk radio and blogosphere to take action. This morning, Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., spoke to bloggers about recent efforts by congressional Democrats to reinstate the policy.

"I think it's a very serious threat," he told the group of roughly a dozen bloggers. Pence came direct from the floor of the House, after introducing a bill, called The Broadcaster Freedom Act, which "will prevent the FCC or any future President from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine."

"This legislation ensures true freedom and fairness will remain on our radio airwaves, and I would encourage my colleagues to cosponsor and support this bill."

Calls for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine have been repeated by several prominent Democrats. Sen. John Kerry recently appeared on WNYC with Brian Lehrer, stating, "I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back." Watch the video of Kerry's interview.

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois has recently said "It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine [...] I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision."

Pence believes Democrats are thinking about how to move their liberal agenda more effectively, and that the Fairness Doctrine to cut their critics in half, or taking their main critics off the air. Even if the Fairness Doctrine was defeated, there's nothing to stop a Democratic president in the future with Democrat appointments to the FCC and a Democratic Congress from reinstating it in the future. "If people in power think they can manage criticism they will do it," Pence told the group of bloggers.

Ladies and gentlemen, your new Senate Demcratic leadership: Nevada's Harry Reid is officially majority leader. No surprise there. Dick Durbin from Illinois is the whip. New York's Chuck Schumer will stay on as campaign committee chair. Patty Murray of Washington will serve as conference secretary, while Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan will head the party steering committee. Here's a full wrap-up of today's secret vote.

As for the House, the elections there later in the week could get a little sticky:

House Democrats face a difficult choice when they pick their leaders Thursday, now that speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi has rejected her current top lieutenant in favor of longtime confidante John Murtha of Pennsylvania.

Murtha, a blunt Vietnam veteran whose call for U.S. troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq helped rally Democrats for the election, had appeared to be the underdog to Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House Democrats' whip.

Hoyer continues to insist he'll take the number two spot... but then Karl Rove obstinately predicted the GOP would hang on to Congress and we see how that turned out.

This is outrageous. Harry Reid is the elected leader of the U.S. Senate and he can't delay his visit to Macchu Picchu for a former president?

Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will miss the state funeral for former President Gerald Ford at the Capitol Rotunda on Saturday night, opting instead to lead a delegation to South America with an expected stop at the Machu Picchu Inca ruins.

Reid, D-Nev., left Wednesday afternoon from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland with a bipartisan group of five other senators, including Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the incoming assistant majority leader, for what has been described as a weeklong visit to Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru.

The group of senators included on this "crucial" junket includes Republicans as well, so this is bipartisan outrage. As Redstate.com says in a pointed post to Republican Senators Bob Bennett and Judd Gregg:

Bob Novak has an article this morning, Reid and Reform, that points out more hypocrisy by the Democrats in their efforts to "reform" Congress -- specifically mentioning the amendment targeting nepotism that Sen. Tom Coburn is introducing (called the Reid Amendment, since Harry Reid and his family made it necessary):

Coburn would tighten loose anti-earmark restrictions in the ethics bill by prohibiting senators from requesting earmarks that financially benefit a senator, an immediate family member of a senator or a family member of a senator's staffer.

The proposal follows the revelation that Reid's four sons and his daughter's husband all have been lawyers or lobbyists for special interests. While Reid has declared they are barred from lobbying for their clients in his office [yep, Reid's family was physically working out of their father's Senate office! - pjc], there is little doubt they have taken advantage of their close proximity to a powerful senator.

Senator Reid's ethics legislation differs significantly (in a bad way) from Pelosi's House version. Yet Novak only casually tells you that Republican Senator Trent Lott was joining Reid and Dick Durbin in championing the watered down ethics bill.

Yesterday the Democrats rejected Bush's offer to come and talk to him about the war funding Bill. Today the Democrats are inviting Bush to come talk on their turf:

In a letter to the President -- the second in as many weeks -- Senators Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer and Patty Murray invited the President to Capitol Hill this Friday to begin dialogue on a supplemental bill that fully funds our troops and recognizes the reality on the ground in Iraq. The leaders expressed disappointment with President Bush's repeated refusals to engage in meaningful discussions about the path forward in Iraq, but again expressed a willingness to work together to produce legislation that both he and a bipartisan majority of Congress could support. Reid and Speaker Pelosi initially invited the President on March 28th to sit down and work with Congress to produce legislation that gives our troops the resources they need and a strategy worthy of their sacrifices. The President has responded thus far with inflexible veto threats.

That was the text of the press release from the Reid office, hence the too-cute last line and genera; slant. but still, among a group of Ohio bloggers I've been listening to, the consensus seems to be that Bush should go ahead and take up the offer, even evoking a West Wing style walk to the hill.

Yeah that's probably not going to happen. But it should.

Nancy Pelosi does not want Jane Harman to chair the House Intelligence committee and instead wants Alcee Hastings. Yet Pelosi, as did all incoming House leadership, voted to impeach Hastings for bribery allegations in 1988:

In fact, just about everybody in the House voted to impeach Judge Hastings: the vote was 413 to 3. (Just for the record, the three who voted against impeachment were Reps. Gus Savage, Mervyn Dymally, and Edward Roybal.)

Others who voted for impeachment were Waxman, Frank, and Rangel as well as Boxer, Schumer and Durbin, who are now Senators.

How will they explain that they voted to impeach a sitting Judge (a rarity) and now support the same man to head up the Intelligence Committee?

Pelosi has been roundly panned by all sides for her handling of the Hoyer/Murtha affair and can't take a chance of this blowing up in her face as well. If she goes with Harman, she shows weakness, if she sticks with Hastings, she'll have explaining to do. Perhaps an unknown compromise candidate will be selected.

This should be fun to watch.

Dick Morris has an idea for a GOP ad:

Here's one possible ad: We see and hear a wiretapped conversation, with a terrorist revealing his worst plans to his associate - and, inadvertently, to government eavesdroppers, too. Then, when he's about to spill the beans on when and where the next attack is going to come, the line should go dead, with a dial tone, with a machine voice saying "This wiretap terminated in the name of privacy rights by the Democratic U.S. Congress."

The announcer can then say, "If the Democrats win, the National Security Agency will never be able to listen in as the terrorists are plotting to attack us."

Hey, that's pretty good! He should be a political consultant! Oh wait.

I honestly don't think a Democratic congress would do this regardless of the noises they are making now. That's just a sop to the lefty base. When it gets right down to brass tacks, many of the newly-minted Democrat congressmen will vote for all the anti-terrorism and patriot II bills the president would like.

Why? Because the new ones won't be in safe districts and I'll bet they'd like to be re-elected in a couple of years.

Republican Senator John Cornyn offered a Sense of the Senate Resolution this afternoon, requiring a three fifths majority, decrying the personal attacks that we've witnessed over the past two weeks on General Petraeus and his troops' integrity. As General Petraeus was confirmed to his position as head of Multinational Forces in Iraq unanimously by this same august body, one would assume that this resolution would also be unanimous, or close to it. Especially when you read the entire text:

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

That's it. No hidden language, nobody specifically mentioned. Just 47 words. A good time for the Senate to unite in a bipartisan way in support for the commanding General currently in combat in Iraq. It passed, 72 to 25, with three Not Voting. The "Nays" consisted of 24 Democrats and 1 Independent. The 3 "Not Voting" were all Democrats.

NAYs ---25 Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Clinton (D-NY) Dodd (D-CT) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Levin (D-MI) Menendez (D-NJ) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 3 Biden (D-DE) Cantwell (D-WA) Obama (D-IL)

Ah, true profiles in courage. Well, at least the troops know who their friends are - who has their back up on the Hill. And al Qaida knows who their friends are, as well.

Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (D-Mars) is preparing to offer articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney. While it remains the responsibilty of Congress to introduce such measures, it seems highly unlikely that Kucinich will get anywhere with this considering his own party is laughing at him:

But Kucinich shouldn't hold his breath on getting anywhere with his impeachment plan. "We'll see a Kucinich Administration before we'll see a Cheney impeachment," quipped one Democratic aide.

Kucininch is just continuing the Democrat plan: introduce a resolution that either has no chance of passing or is non-binding, then go back to the far-left base and tell them you tried. It's win-win and amounts to nothing, just like the first one hundred days of the Democrat-controlled Congress.

You may or may not remember that Kucinich is the same candidate who last election said that he would develop a U.S. Department of Peace in his administration. That agency would oversee a "Peace Academy" built on the same principle as the U.S, Naval Academy or West Point...with different curricula of course.

As an exit question, what degrees could be attained at a college that teaches peace? A bachelor of arts in advanced papier mache puppet construction with a minor in creative Bush/Hitler analogies? Perhaps a BS in uses of pachouli oil for fuel with a minor in Phish Philosophy.

This is just one of the many revelations residing between the covers of the former CIA director's new tell-all, "At the Center of the Storm." So what else do we learn? From Mr. Tenet's pen to your eyes:

"There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat."

Yawn. We knew this already. More interesting, however, is Tenet's description of personally nixing a Dick Cheney speech the day before our invasion of Iraq in which the Veep planned to assert a link between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. Tenet:

"Mr. President, we cannot support the speech and it should not be given,"

And remember that Presidential Medal of Freedom? Well, it turns out that G.T. was, "not all that sure I wanted to accept it." So why did he bow and have the president bestow it upon his capable shoulders? Because the citation didn't mention anything about Iraq. And speaking of that taboo subject, for which Tenet claims little responsibility, what does the former director think of how things are going for the U.S. today?

"It may have worked more than three years ago. My fear is that sectarian violence in Iraq has taken on a life of its own and that U.S. forces are becoming more and more irrelevant to the management of violence."

%Gallery-2844%
Previously on 'The Stump':
- 'They Don't Know What They Are Doing'
- Pat Tillman's Brother Addresses Congress
- Remember 'As the Iraqis Stand Up, We Will Stand Down'??

A quick stop at the American Girl store in Chicago for the Cheney granchildren leads to a surreal moment:

Vice-President Dick Cheney was mobbed by little girls Friday when he made an unannounced stop at the American Girl doll store on Michigan Avenue in Chicago, Illinois.

Once they realized who he was, the little girls swarmed the Vice-President, shaking his hand and asking for pictures, according to the pool report written by the Washington Post's Peter Baker.

"Say, 'Hi, Mr. Vice President,'" one mother told her daughter.

The Vice-President, never the most warm and fuzzy man on the campaign trail, indulged his fans and posed for pictures. "Good to see you," he said.

Heh. Too bad they can't vote.

Either the demonization of Dick Cheney isn't taking hold among the suburban white moms and daughters that frequent American Girl, or the opportunity to get a VP autograph overwhelmed any lingering anger and doubt about the "Shadow President."

Which all adds up to a nice little break from the usual politics.

Via Instapundit, Frank Warner observes the 8th Anniversary of the the signing of the Iraq Liberation Act by Bill Clinton. It was adopted by unanimous consent. Here's Clinton's statement at the signing:

"The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home," Clinton said. "I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.... "[W]hile the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government."

Just how did the following Democrats (and RINOS) believe we could overthrow Saddam Hussein? Short of military action and/or military support for the "opposition groups" that Clinton mentioned, especially in light of the Oil for Food Scandal that was going on right underneath the Clinton Administration's nose? Or were their votes as meaningless as their rhetoric?

Akaka (D-HI), Baucus (D-MT), Biden (D-DE), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Breaux (D-LA), Bryan (D-NV), Bumpers (D-AR), Byrd (D-WV), Cleland (D-GA), Collins (R-ME), Conrad (D-ND), D'Amato (R-NY), Daschle (D-SD), Dodd (D-CT), Dorgan (D-ND), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Ford (D-KY), Graham (D-FL), Gregg (R-NH), Hagel (R-NE), Harkin (D-IA), Hollings (D-SC), Inouye (D-HI), Jeffords (R-VT), Johnson (D-SD), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerrey (D-NE), Kerry (D-MA), Kohl (D-WI), Landrieu (D-LA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Levin (D-MI), Lieberman (D-CT), Mikulski (D-MD), Moseley-Braun (D-IL), Moynihan (D-NY), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Reid (D-NV), Robb (D-VA), Rockefeller (D-WV), Sarbanes (D-MD), Snowe (R-ME), Specter (R-PA), Torricelli (D-NJ), Wellstone (D-MN), Wyden (D-OR)

Oh, that's right. 1998 was an election year, too. Better look strong on national security for the constituents!

Dick Cheney, the most powerful VP ever -- some say he is the real president -- was on Face the Nation today. None of the questions I wanted answered were asked, so I'll ask them here:

1) What exactly were you doing hanging around the edge of the Rose Garden while Bush was holding a press briefing the other day? How often do you hang out at the edges? Are you monitoring? What happens when Bush says something you don't agree with?

2) What really happened when you were hunting? That story alone would make any price of admission worthwhile. I'd especially like to know why so much time passed between the accident and the reporting of it. How about it? I'll even buy the beer.

3) A number of your advisers worked on the PNAC the group that advocated for American dominance in the world, the Middle East in general and going to war in Iraq in particular. When did you decide to invade Iraq?

4) Americans are pretty fed up with the War, how it happened, the past four years and the incredible amount of money, resources and especially the sacrifice required of our military. We now have a military stretched beyond its limits and are now less secure than ever at home. What would you do different now?

5) How badly do you want to drop a nuke on Iran or Syria?

6) Do you use e-mail?

7) Can we go hunting?

Well sort of. Some possibly 'well meaning' person put me on the Republican e-mail list. I've been getting thank you's without sending $$, as well as pleas for more $$. How they ask is interesting (to say the least).

"We are strongly positioned to maintain our majorities as we head into the final stretch of the 2006 election. With your help over the next 35 days, we will send a new generation of conservative reformers to Washington to stand up for our Party's core principles.

Control of Congress could come down to a few seats. Our candidates in these close races need all the support they can get. Can we afford to wake up on November 8 and learn that we fell short because one candidate didn't have the resources they needed to close the gap against an out-of-touch Democrat funded by unions and trial lawyers?"

Don't get me wrong. Democrats do the same thing, similar approach but it speaks to a need for a solution to what ails the cacmpaign system. Follow along if you will.