# Al Gore's speech on "the limits of executive power" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 17, 2006, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-gores-speech-on-the-limits-of-executive-power/340296 "2006-01-17T01:54:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-gores-speech-on-the-limits-of-executive-power/340296/1 "2006-01-17T01:54:25Z")
Al Gore gave an MLK Day speech on “the limits of executive power.” You can read the whole text here: [http://www.algore04.com/](http://www.algore04.com/) Discuss! ---
**Author:** ![Menocchio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@Menocchio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Menocchio)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-gores-speech-on-the-limits-of-executive-power/340296/2 "2006-01-17T03:10:21Z")
Dammit, Gore, if you had that kind of fire in 2000, we wouldn’t be in this mess. I think he may be the Dem’s best chance in 2008, which is NOT something I would say in 2000. Very good speech. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-gores-speech-on-the-limits-of-executive-power/340296/3 "2006-01-17T11:21:26Z")
Apparently, all of a sudden he’s an expert on “controlling legal authority”. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-gores-speech-on-the-limits-of-executive-power/340296/4 "2006-01-17T13:02:18Z")
Atta boy, Al! If only the media would thumb their noses at their corporate masters and cover this issue. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-gores-speech-on-the-limits-of-executive-power/340296/5 "2006-01-17T14:42:26Z")
Actually, Gore’s always been a nuts and bolts kind of guy. He was a very active vice president, and as I recall, he did a lot of work shrinking the internal federal government. Hm. Wikipedia says… He was a member of the US Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. > [@Wikipedia](#): > > One of Gore’s major accomplishments as Vice President was the National Performance Review, which pointed out waste, fraud, and other abuse in the federal government and stressed the need for cutting the size of the bureaucracy and the number of regulations. His book later helped guide President Clinton when he down sized the federal government. > … > Because of President Clinton’s inexperience and Gore’s service in Vietnam and in the Senate, Clinton would often look to Gore for advice in the area of foreign policy. He’s since spent his career lecturing on, among other things, democracy. I don’t know much, but if I wanted to pick one man who knew things about rules, regulations, and limitations of federal government… yeah, he’d be on my short list. I heartily approve of Al Gore. Not to mention, of course, he took the initiative in making the internet what it is today. No, that’s not a joke. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-gores-speech-on-the-limits-of-executive-power/340296/6 "2006-01-17T15:05:40Z")
As numerous people elsewhere have pointed out, it would be helpful if he’d square this with the [Clinton administration’s position](http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/al-gore-arrogates-to-himself-power-to.html) – even after the FISA court was created – that they had the right to do warrantless searches. It’s entirely possible that this was a position Gore opposed from within the administration; but if so, it sure as heck seems like he ought to clear things up now. Criticism of this policy is fair; raising the possibility that it stepped over the line into illegality is fair (wrong, IMO, but a case can be made); Al Gore acting shocked, _shocked_ that this was happening is disingenuous to the point of self-mockery. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-gores-speech-on-the-limits-of-executive-power/340296/7 "2006-01-17T15:13:13Z")
> [@What the .... ?!?!](#): > > Apparently, all of a sudden he’s an expert on “controlling legal authority”. Well, Gore never finished law school (he quit to run for Congress); but he was a congressman, a senator, and vice-president of the United States for eight years. You think he doesn’t know what he’s talking about? His credentials in that area are much better than W’s, at any rate. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-gores-speech-on-the-limits-of-executive-power/340296/8 "2006-01-17T15:17:49Z")
Did anyone else notice the title on his web page: Al Gore 2008 ? Very interesting. I hope it’s a good sign. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-gores-speech-on-the-limits-of-executive-power/340296/9 "2006-01-17T16:03:22Z")
> [@furt](#): > > As numerous people elsewhere have pointed out, it would be helpful if he’d square this with the [Clinton administration’s position](http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/al-gore-arrogates-to-himself-power-to.html) – even after the FISA court was created – that they had the right to do warrantless searches. Am I missing something? I read the 1994 statement as pertaining to outside-our-borders communication, and the new flak is about listening to American citizens inside the country talking to somebody outside the country - without a warrant. Am I wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Menocchio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@Menocchio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Menocchio)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-gores-speech-on-the-limits-of-executive-power/340296/10 "2006-01-17T16:06:15Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Did anyone else notice the title on his web page: Al Gore 2008 ? Very interesting. I hope it’s a good sign. I think that’s just wishful thinking from his fan club, at this point, but you never can tell… I like everything I’ve heard from Gore since he lost in 2000. He’s got a lot of work to do if he’s going to shake the “automaton loser” image that dogged him last time around, but I still think he’s a stronger canidate than HR Clinton or any other Democrat I can think of offhand. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-gores-speech-on-the-limits-of-executive-power/340296/11 "2006-01-17T16:24:48Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Did anyone else notice the title on his web page: Al Gore 2008 ? Very interesting. I hope it’s a good sign. Maybe if he were running against Bush. Running against McCain he’d be slaughtered. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-gores-speech-on-the-limits-of-executive-power/340296/12 "2006-01-17T16:36:24Z")
> [@furt](#): > > As numerous people elsewhere have pointed out, it would be helpful if he’d square this with the [Clinton administration’s position](http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/al-gore-arrogates-to-himself-power-to.html) – even after the FISA court was created – that they had the right to do warrantless searches. It’s entirely possible that this was a position Gore opposed from within the administration; but if so, it sure as heck seems like he ought to clear things up now. > > Criticism of this policy is fair; raising the possibility that it stepped over the line into illegality is fair (wrong, IMO, but a case can be made); Al Gore acting shocked, _shocked_ that this was happening is disingenuous to the point of self-mockery. Heh. If other folks weren’t focusing on Gore instead of on the speech, I’d be pretty pissed at this blatant _ad hominem_. As it is, the focus is on the man and not on his words, so I suppose this is not out of place. What about his words? Do folks have specific disagreements with the points he makes, divorced from the guy who’s making them? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-gores-speech-on-the-limits-of-executive-power/340296/13 "2006-01-17T16:49:39Z")
Checking provenance of assertation, re Gore. Assertations made in similar locations have proven false before. More later. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-gores-speech-on-the-limits-of-executive-power/340296/14 "2006-01-17T16:52:50Z")
The speech is extremely broad in the areas it criticizes, ranging from illegal wiretaps to Medicare. It might be good for us to choose a few small bits to debate. For example, here are his recommendations from the end of the speech: > [@](#): > > A special counsel should immediately be appointed by the Attorney General to remedy the obvious conflict of interest that prevents him from investigating what many believe are serious violations of law by the President. We have had a fresh demonstration of how an independent investigation by a special counsel with integrity can rebuild confidence in our system of justice. Patrick Fitzgerald has, by all accounts, shown neither fear nor favor in pursuing allegations that the Executive Branch has violated other laws. > > Republican as well as Democratic members of Congress should support the bipartisan call of the Liberty Coalition for the appointment of a special counsel to pursue the criminal issues raised by warrantless wiretapping of Americans by the President. > > Second, new whistleblower protections should immediately be established for members of the Executive Branch who report evidence of wrongdoing – especially where it involves the abuse of Executive Branch authority in the sensitive areas of national security. > > Third, both Houses of Congress should hold comprehensive-and not just superficial-hearings into these serious allegations of criminal behavior on the part of the President. And, they should follow the evidence wherever it leads. > > Fourth, the extensive new powers requested by the Executive Branch in its proposal to extend and enlarge the Patriot Act should, under no circumstances be granted, unless and until there are adequate and enforceable safeguards to protect the Constitution and the rights of the American people against the kinds of abuses that have so recently been revealed. > > Fifth, any telecommunications company that has provided the government with access to private information concerning the communications of Americans without a proper warrant should immediately cease and desist their complicity in this apparently illegal invasion of the privacy of American citizens. The second and the fourth one seem most controversial. WHat do y’all think? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-gores-speech-on-the-limits-of-executive-power/340296/15 "2006-01-17T16:59:23Z")
The key seems to be in this sublinked article. [http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp](http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp) (The public housing issue should be set aside as not directly relevant, I feel… it was brought up and shut down) > [@The Article](#): > > Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against “a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.” > … > “The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S. spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order. The administration’s quiet lobbying effort is aimed at modifying draft legislation that would require U.S. counterintelligence officials to get a court order before secretly snooping inside the homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers.” > … > Meanwhile, Congress began discussing a measure under which the authorization for break-ins would be handled like the authorization for wiretaps, that is, by the FISA court. In her testimony, Gorelick signaled that the administration would go along a congressional decision to place such searches under the court — if, as she testified, it “does not restrict the president’s ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security.” So, against foreign agents in the United States, and physical break ins when the issue had not been settled, but clearly not insofar as wiretapping, which was already covered by FISA. (The breakins were later put under FISA) As the warrants are retroactive, the only thing that would restrict the president’s ability would be the inability of FISA to process retroactive warrants fast enough. Or, of course, if all the judges were suborned by foreign powers. Am I wrong? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-gores-speech-on-the-limits-of-executive-power/340296/16 "2006-01-17T17:01:11Z")
I generally agree with the second and fourth, though the second may be something the President has to do, the fourth is something Congress has to do, and the fifth is most interesting… as, according to Body of Secrets, it is something the phone companies have been doing for decades. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-gores-speech-on-the-limits-of-executive-power/340296/17 "2006-01-17T17:01:44Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Maybe if he were running against Bush. Running against McCain he’d be slaughtered. So what? The Powers That Be in the GOP are not going to accept McCain as their candidate. I’d be far more shocked by McCain than Jeb Bush getting the nomination for 2008. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-gores-speech-on-the-limits-of-executive-power/340296/18 "2006-01-17T17:03:29Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > So what? The Powers That Be in the GOP are not going to accept McCain as their candidate. I’d be far more shocked by McCain than Jeb Bush getting the nomination for 2008. Jeb has said he won’t run. (Maybe he had his fingers crossed.) But I agree, McCain doesn’t have a chance of getting the nomination. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-gores-speech-on-the-limits-of-executive-power/340296/19 "2006-01-17T17:06:32Z")
> [@furt](#): > > As numerous people elsewhere have pointed out, it would be helpful if he’d square this with the [Clinton administration’s position](http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/al-gore-arrogates-to-himself-power-to.html) – even after the FISA court was created – that they had the right to do warrantless searches. It’s entirely possible that this was a position Gore opposed from within the administration; but if so, it sure as heck seems like he ought to clear things up now. > > Criticism of this policy is fair; raising the possibility that it stepped over the line into illegality is fair (wrong, IMO, but a case can be made); Al Gore acting shocked, _shocked_ that this was happening is disingenuous to the point of self-mockery. I don’t think that dog is going to hunt. That’s been pretty well debunked. [From Media Matters:](http://mediamatters.org/items/200512240002) > [@](#): > > But as the ThinkProgress weblog noted on December 20, executive orders on the topic by Clinton and Carter were merely explaining the rules established by FISA, which do not allow for warrantless searches on “United States persons.” > > Subsequent reports by NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell and The Washington Post also debunked the conservative talking point while noting that the claim was highlighted in the December 21 RNC press release. > What Clinton actually signed: > > ``` > Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section. > > ``` > > That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-gores-speech-on-the-limits-of-executive-power/340296/20 "2006-01-17T17:19:49Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Jeb has said he won’t run. (Maybe he had his fingers crossed.) But I agree, McCain doesn’t have a chance of getting the nomination. No way Jeb is going to run. There’s going to be a groundswell of support for McCain. The “powers that be” might try to prevent him from getting the nomination, but they may not be able to stop it. > [@BLD](#): > > don’t think that dog is going to hunt. There was more than one dog in that cite. What about [this dog?](http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0512210142dec21,1,2062394.story?coll=chi-technology-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true) > [@](#): > > President had legal authority to OK taps > > By John Schmidt > > \ > > John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-gores-speech-on-the-limits-of-executive-power/340296.md?page=2)