[declan]

If the checks and balances were functioning, we wouldn't have senators warning in 2011 of the Obama administration's "secret interpretation" of the Patriot Act: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20067005-281.html

Unfortunately the senators were on the Intelligence committee and viewed themselves as unable to disclose what they learned in secret briefings. Now we know at least part of what they were talking about.

[brown9-2]

"viewed themselves as unable to disclose what they learned in secret briefings"

That is because it is illegal to disclose classified intelligence, even for a Senator.

The reason why these Senators could only warn about things, instead of passing legislation to change the law, is because the majority of Congress supports this type of legislation.

The checks and balances are still there - the problem is that the body that passes the law agrees with this type of power.

[_delirium]

> the problem is that the body that passes the law agrees with this type of power

You can see that in the initial comments on this leak: among the first official comments were both parties' ranking members on the Senate Intelligence Committee — Dianne Feinstein (D) and Saxby Chambliss (R) — defending the program. It's not a surprise to them or something they want to change.

[declan]

This is untrue. It is not "illegal" for a senator to disclose classified material. The Constitution's speech and debate clause trumps federal criminal law, meaning he or she could disclose the material on the floor of the Senate or in committee. (Doing so may not be wise, of course, but it would be legal.)

The Supreme Court has ruled on this (Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606) after Senator Mike Gravel read a copy of the classified Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record.