A little sanity returns! A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. "Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion. The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly listening to conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries. The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets. The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_go_pr_wh/warrantless_surveillance&printer=1
"...the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Good call.
More from the Judge: In this case, the President has acted, undisputedly, as FISA forbids. FISA is the expressed statutory policy of our Congress. The presidential power, therefore, was exercised at its lowest ebb and cannot be sustained. and... It is further ordered that the TSP violates the Seperation of Powers Doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA, and Title III, and... It is hereby ordered that Defendants... are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program. A good ruling for the America I love.
a small victory for what america and our constitution stands for. gives me hope that no matter how far back the bush administration tries to set our country, freedom will prevail.
More... In enacting FISA, Congress made numerous concessions to stated executive needs. They include delaying the applications for warrants . . . for several types of exigencies, reducing the probable cause requirement . . . and extension of . . . approved wiretaps from thirty days to a ninety day term. All of the above Congressional concessions to Executive need and to the exigencies of our present situation . . . have been futile. The wiretapping program here in litigation has undisputably been continued for at least five years, it has undisputably been implemented without regard to FISA . . . and obviously in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The President of the United States is himself created by that Constitution. and... In this case, if the teachings of Youngstown are law, the separation of powers doctrine has been violated. The president undisputably has violated the provisions of FISA for a five-year period. and... Justice Black wrote, in Youngstown: Nor can the seizure order be sustained because of the several constitutional provisions that grant executive power to the President. In the framework of our Constitution, the President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad. And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who make laws which the President is to execute. The first section of the first article says that `All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States * * *' The President's order does not direct that a congressional policy be executed in a manner prescribed by Congress - it directs that a presidential policy be executed in a manner prescribed by the President. . . . The Constitution did not subject this law-making power of Congress to presidential or military supervision or control. Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 587-588. and... These secret authorization orders must, like the executive order in that case, fall. They violate the Separation of Powers ordained by the very Constitution of which this President is a creature. and... The AUMF Resolution, if indeed it is construed as replacing FISA, gives no support to Defendants here. Even if that Resolution superceded all other statutory law, Defendants have violated the Constitutional rights of their citizens including the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Seperation of Powers Doctrine. and... The Government appears to argue here that, pursuant to the penumbra of Constitutional language in Article II, and particularly because the President is designated Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, he has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, itself. ... There are no heriditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Consitution. So all "inherent powers" must derive form that Constitution. ... In Youngstown...the Court noted that the President had been created Commander in Chief of only the military, not of all people, even in time of war. ... no emergency can create power. The argument that inherent powers justify the program here in litigation must fail. (Blows the Unitary Executive theory out of the water.)
Excercise your power judicial branch, remember they are suppose to have the same amount of power as the executive branch. I wonder if they teach American Government at Yale?
I do think it is a good thing, but just to play devil's advocate, how do you think we get most of the intelligence we do get...Without some of this going on, maybe things like the twarted Airline plot in London wouldn't have been found out...Just thowing it out there...
More... ...it is important to note that if the court were to deny standing based on the unsubstantiated minor distinctions drawn by Defendants, the President's actions in warrantless wiretapping, in contravention of FISA, Title II, and the First and Fourth amendments, would be immunized from judicial scrutiny. It was never the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another. It is within the court's duty to ensure that power is never condensed into a single branch of government."
Here's the thing... We already have the FISA court for just this very purpose. I would hope we did and do tap terrorist's calls and monitor them. I have no problem with that. Just follow the law and get the warrent. I just don't understand why Bush decided he didn't have to follow laws already on the books.
That example's probably not the best one to use... And this is not about terrorism or intelligence... it's about Presidential power in our Constitutional system. If there are legitimate national interest needs that cannot be met under existing law, the President proposes laws to the Congress, who may or may not pass them. He doesn't claim powers that an 11th grade civics student can plainly see are not in the Constitution and embark on secret surveillance of Americans.
exactly. does anybody really think that there is any way to ensure compliance by the super-secret NSA, which dubbyah clearly doesn't want to do?
Failure to comply with the Court's order would be Contempt of Court, which is a crime. I seem to remember from the Clinton years that Republicans are in favor of the Rule of Law and understand that No Man is above the law, so we don't have anything to worry about... "This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law. Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us, when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth. No man is above the law, and no man is below the law. That's the principle that we all hold very dear in this country." --Tom Delay "I will have no part in the creation of a constitutional double-standard to benefit the President. He is not above the law. If an ordinary citizen committed these crimes, he would go to jail." --Bill Frist "When someone is elected president, they receive the greatest gift possible from the American people, their trust. To violate that trust is to raise questions about fitness for office. My constituents often remind me that if anyone else in a position of authority -- for example, a business executive, a military officer of a professional educator -- had acted as the evidence indicates the president did, their career would be over." --Lamar Smith And of course, what would we tell the children if Bush continues in this now unconstitutional manner... "There can be no shading of right and wrong.... But after stripping away the underbrush of legal technicalities and nuance, I find that the President abused his sacred power by lying and obstructing justice. How can parents instill values and morality in their children? How can educators teach our children? How can the rule of law for every American be applied equally if we have two standards of justice in America--one for the powerful and the other for the rest of us?" --Chuck Hagel
