mc arriana, i had failed to realize that amongst your many accomplishments was that of constitutional scholar. could you please cite, w/o reference to the dailyhuffingkos.com exactly which statute applies here, and how the administration's actions violate said law? and if th's such a cut a dried case, why hasn't bush been removed from office yet?
never said I was a scholar dick. I read the four page opinion and thats what it was. I don't agree with it.
I just did and wrote a reply to it. What I don't understand is as someone like you who has argued forcefully with protecting individual liberties in terms of the 2nd Ammendment is so eager to see the 4th Ammendment undermined. You do understand that the opinion that the Comander in Chief can essentially act as a dictator in a time of war does mean that he also has the power to severely restrict the private ownership and use of firearms. The only protection that you have is that you trust the person occupying that office because if the current Admin's argument is to accepted a pro-gun control President elected in the future could seize private firearms under the same argument that the need to fight terrorism supercedes the 2nd Ammendment.
The hedons of liberalistic thought think they have nothing smeared on, but an opinion. The fact is President Bush has done nothing wrong. In fact he has only done right. I heed the fact-based opinion of the Justice Department. Refute the article...Go ahead. You can't. The judicial jurisprudence used as case precedent is valid. This is a fact jack! Specific examples of the cited facts cannot be negated. It is sad to see how exposed those are that want something to stick, but it clearly doesn't
"all necessary authority" is not find verbatim in the report, what is from Article II, is that the C.I.C. (Commander in Chief) is bound to protect the nation from further attacks as specified fom case, 67 U.S. (2 black) 635, 668 (1863), furthermore if the Nation is invaded, the President is bound to resist by force without special legislative authority as furthermore cited in Campbell v. Clinton...Furthermore I strongly refute the possibility of terroristic attacks as neither clear or a present danger. It is. The President is doing what he needs to do within the law to protect the nation. Hardly a dictator, when he is doing what he is suppose to. The article is from the department of Justice. That you are correct, but I feel the numerous, upon numerous cited examples of judicial case precedent is wholesomely based as unrefutable evidence which only underlines with clarity the legality. I hardly think the justice department would have credence on unsubstantiated "fishing expeditions" as you put it. Intelligence on a realized threat is fruitful and an obligation from the President.
He doesn't, and wouldn't supercede the Constitution, as cited by the report. The report uses many case precedents, so it is demonstrated the President is in keeping with the Constitution. I fail to get the connection with a realized national security threat, and private firearms. try again.
Again that is debatable and as I pointed out one of their citations is wrong and actually supports the counter argument. Further the whole argument is if the executive can act in manner that would supercede the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. The fact that those many of the cases cited were in a time of war shows that the Judicial branch still is empowered to rule on the actions of the Executive even in time of war. That is very easy. If a US citizen was considered in league with Al Qaeda and known to possess firearms under the reasoning applied by the Admin's argument then those firearms could be seized without a warrant under the basis that an armed sympathizer of Al Qaeda is a national threat and just depending on the Admin's own opinion of whether they are in league with Al Aqaeda. Under the Admin's own argument they wouldn't even have to explain to anyone why they thought that person was in league or even why they were a threat. Again it all comes down to whether you trust the Admin. to make that call.
I wouldn't be too sure the one cited case you believe as wrong is in fact taciturned as supportive argument in a compelling way, an astute lawyer is better at than you or me. Furthermore, the separation of powers is still in effect when Article II is referred to security action at a time such as we are in. The attack of 9/11 is easily forgotten by some, but the period of secured vigilance has not ended since then. I would be relieved to tell you when we can relax the guard, but time is not now. For my children's sake, and the sanctity of so much life, the danger is too great. Judicial review is not forgone even during duressive times like these.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. That's it, basso. You fail to see how Bush, violating a law passed by Congress to prevent just this kind of abuse, has violated the 4th Amendment of our Constitution? I am at a loss to understand your reasoning. Keep D&D Civil.
there's plenty of rooom to debate here. is an email, IM, chat romm post or other electronic communication, once it's been sent, still the property of the user? the courts routinely provide access to emails in suits against large corporations, and destroying them can be a crime. in that case, how can they be said to a personal effect and thus protected? and what is the definition of unreasonable? and lastly, the monitoring was of international communications, of known terror suspects, in a war where the front is the streets of our cities. how can you argue monitoring in this case is unreasonable?
We have separation of powers for a reason. Congress passes the laws. The President deliberately chose to ignore a law Congress passed to prevent just the kind of abuse Bush is commiting by wiretapping without obtaining a warrant. It's cut and dried. I don't see this "plenty of rooom to debate here," that you do. The President has broken the law and deliberately ignored an act passed by Congress. Keep D&D Civil.
Yes I will admit I am nothign more than an amateur Constitutional scholar but as you admit you're not an astute lawyer either, and I say this with all due respect, I don't think you are grasping the implications of this argument or the details of the DOJ's argument. I say that with respect because I admit that there are probably things that I'm missing too but then again that's why we are on Clutchfans D & D and not on the USSC. I will agree that this is an issue that isn't completely cut and dried and the DOJ argument is certainly compelling. I don't believe its anywhere near foolproof though and this is an issue that is crying out for a Supreme Court ruling. My main point to you is that you consider carefully the implications of what the DOJ is arguing. They don't say it but it is essentially saying that the President can do anything as long as it is in the name of National Security with no restraint or even having to inform Congress or the Courts. That is basically dictatorship.
It is perfectly reasonable. As with any other case, congress is empowered to determine how such acts are carried out. For instance, in spite of the second amendment, congress has seen fit to limit and regulate the trade of machine guns. The President, as is the case with every other citizen, is not empowered to break these reasonable Congressional procedures at will. If he deems them to be unreasonable, he can seek and possibly receive judicial annulment on Constitutional grounds, and the Supreme Court regularly does exactly that. In this case, the President has not followed the regulations provided by Congress. He has not taken the subject up in the Federal courts. Gonzales in fact argues that he President has discretion to ignore any laws he believes are unconstitutional. I repeat, Gonzales argues that he President has discretion to ignore any laws he believes are unconstitutional. That sounds more like Joseph Stalin’s idea of running the Soviet Union than the American system where the rules and procedures are more fundamental to the core idea of the country than any other individual or issue. President Bush has simply chosen to ignore Congress and to ignore his ability to have Congress overruled in the courts of the US. He has decided that he is both the Chief Executive, as well as a Judge empowered to rule on Constitutional Law. He has broken the law. When anybody repeatedly and willfully breaks the law, no matter how good the reason or how justified their cause, they are required to at the very least defend themselves in front of a court. If they are in the right, and the law is wrong or unconstitutional, the court lets them off the hook and strikes the law from the books. In the special instance of the President, who through his Executive powers controls the Justice department which prosecutes the law, the Congress is empowered to bypass the President's ability to influence the standard legal and to act as both prosecutor and judge. In this instance, therefore, an impeachment is the proper course of action. What the outcome of the impeachment would then be determined by the proceedings. In short, the issue is the circumvention of the system of checks and balances which prevents the breakdown of the rule of law. This instance of the president’s violation of procedure is not the Presidential equivalent of jaywalking. It is not a minor infraction to be excused in the President's execution of his duty. It is, in fact, a crime that is potentially more damaging to society than any murder. If the President is allowed to ignore such laws as he sees fit, the rule of law is no longer in effect, and we have taken the first steps on the slippery slope to the particular brand of "the rule of law" exercised in Banana Republics the world over.
I agree that it is the president's job to see to national security. That is further explained in the constitution by making him the commander and chief. But the writers of the constitution left little doubt that defending it, was the top priority by specifically listing it in the oath of office. The constittuion also put checks and balances into play in order to protect citizens from their govt. The only check we have on illegal wiretaps of this kind is the FISA court. That is the one protection that citizens have from their govt. in this area. When a president violates that he has failed in his oath to uphold the constitution. I don't think monitoring Amish groups is really providing for the common defense either.
mc mark, you were right in your initial post. I misworded a yes or a no on the last two questions. I shouldn't try and insert polls on little sleep and jet lag. Oh well, we can still debate the constitutionality of everything.
