Granting clause, Article 2. Read it and weep. The libs are pinning their hopes on yet another fake scandal.
I've read Article 2. Have you? Again, nowhere does it state that the president can override the courts. Again you have no proof and can site no statute or precedent. If you can, post it here.
Rockefeller disapproved of secret spying when informed Mon Dec 19, 2005 at 05:13:47 PM PDT When informed of the secret spying on American citizens without court order, Jay Rockefeller didn't instruct his staff to write a suitably outraged letter -- he couldn't because of security concerns. So he hand wrote the letter himself.
Daschle’s statement Between 2002 and 2004, the White House notified me in classified briefings about NSA programs related to the war on terrorism. The briefers made clear they were not seeking my advice or consent, but were simply informing me about new actions. If subsequent public accounts are accurate, it now also appears the briefers omitted key details, including important information about the scope of the program. Even with some of the more troublesome - and potentially illegal - details omitted, I still raised significant concern about these actions. As such, I am surprised and disappointed that the White House would now suggest that none of us informed of the program objected. As a result of the significant legal and security concerns raised by the President's actions, I believe it is incumbent on the President to explain the specific legal justification for his actions, for the Congress to fully investigate these actions, and for the Administration to fully cooperate with that investigation.
Reid's statement The President asserted in his December 17th radio address that "leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it." This statement gives the American public a very misleading impression that the President fully consulted with Congress. First, it is quite likely that 96 Senators of 100 Senators, including 13 of 15 on the Senate Intelligence Committee first learned about this program in the New York Times, not from any Administration briefing. I personally received a single very short briefing on this program earlier this year prior to its public disclosure. That briefing occurred more than three years after the President said this program began. The Administration briefers did not seek my advice or consent about the program, and based on what I have heard publicly since, key details about the program apparently were not provided to me. Under current Administration briefing guidelines, members of Congress are informed after decisions are made, have virtually no ability to either approve or reject a program, and are prohibited from discussing these types of programs with nearly all of their fellow members and all of their staff. We need to investigate this program and the President's legal authority to carry it out. We also need to review this flawed congressional consultation system. I will be asking the President to cooperate in both reviews. Pelosi's statement We all agree that the President must have the best possible intelligence to protect the American people, but that intelligence must be produced in a manner consistent with the United States Constitution and our laws. The President's statement today raises serious questions as to what the activities were and whether the activities were lawful. I was advised of President Bush's decision to provide authority to the National Security Agency to conduct unspecified activities shortly after he made it and have been provided with updates on several occasions. The Bush Administration considered these briefings to be notification, not a request for approval. As is my practice whenever I am notified about intelligence activities, I expressed my strong concerns during these briefings.
Article 2 is one of the parts he is most directly in violation of. He is acting contrary to that oath at the moment by protecting the constitution. Also please not that it does not say the President will protect the United STates of America. It says he will protect and preserve the constitution. The founding fathers knew that protecting that and the freedoms guaranteed in it was tantamount to a successful nation. Protecting the nation might provide excuse to dismiss the constitution, and thus they explicitly wrote that part of the oath into the constitution. Bush is guilty, and needs to be punished.
no worries mate! Bush’s Snoopgate WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY By Jonathan Alter Newsweek Updated: 6:17 p.m. ET Dec. 19, 2005 Dec. 19, 2005 - Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate—he made it seem as if those who didn’t agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda—but it will not work. We’re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting, but one can only imagine the president’s desperation. The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists—in fact, all American Muslims, period—have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that “the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.” But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a “shameful act,” it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab. No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism. What is especially perplexing about this story is that the 1978 law set up a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if necessary. In fact, the law allows the government to eavesdrop on its own, then retroactively justify it to the court, essentially obtaining a warrant after the fact. Since 1979, the FISA court has approved tens of thousands of eavesdropping requests and rejected only four. There was no indication the existing system was slow—as the president seemed to claim in his press conference—or in any way required extra-constitutional action. This will all play out eventually in congressional committees and in the United States Supreme Court. If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced. Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974. In the meantime, it is unlikely that Bush will echo President Kennedy in 1961. After JFK managed to tone down a New York Times story by Tad Szulc on the Bay of Pigs invasion, he confided to Times editor Turner Catledge that he wished the paper had printed the whole story because it might have spared him such a stunning defeat in Cuba. This time, the president knew publication would cause him great embarrassment and trouble for the rest of his presidency. It was for that reason—and less out of genuine concern about national security—that George W. Bush tried so hard to kill the New York Times story. © 2005 Newsweek, Inc. © 2005 MSNBC.com URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/
We are witnessing a sea change in the administration. Whereas before Jr would deny, refute and rebuff any allegation of wrong doing, we are now seeing open defiance. Bush is now showing his true self. Daring, threatening and bullying anyone who disagrees with him. Even members of his own party. This is a desperate, dangerous man.
Article 2 grants the President executive power to do exactly what Bush did. It trumps any legislative action. The New York Times -- a documented liar -- waited a YEAR to dump these fraudulent lies on us. The thought was to help torpedo the Patriot Act. For the sane amongst us, this eavesdropping occurred with *known* al Qaeda targets and occurred only in overseas conversations. These are the facts that the liberals don't want you to know. They are too busy doing the three knuckle shuffle over their impeachment wet dreams. Lube up well, liberals, for we would hate to see you chaffe yourselves!
That was yesterday morning. By the afternoon, he became 'Mr. Humble' who was suddenly willing to listen to crtics. They're very concernced about this one, and rightly so. I wonder if their creative explanation ('Congress approved w/ the war' ) will anger even more Republican legislators.
Believe it or not Trader the liberals on this board do not decide whether or not there will be an investigation into Bush's alleged illegal spying program. It is in fact stalwart republican Senator Arlen Spector that will be making that judgment.
can you quote that statement for us? if its true, why does congress have to authorize it first? you think you have a better understanding of the constitution than gonzales? I didn't know John McCain was a lib..
Site it TJ. That's all I'm asking. Post the language from article 2 that proves your point. That's it! And I will admit you were right.
Again, nowhere in article II or anywhere else in the Constitution is this authorized. Please read it again, or explain the answer. I have heard some experts say the act may have fallen under a certain intelligence act if it happened within 15 days of 9/11. That is as supportive as it has gotten. Not one will try and push the story that it is a power granted by our constitution. By some of your previous posts it doesn't surprise me that your understanding of nation's founding document is lacking.
