Ever read article 10 of the bill of rights?
Your statement was 180-degrees wrong. Whatever powers not delegated to the United States ... are reserved for the states ... or to the people."
We, the people, get the power not specified in the Constitution. Not the government.
Not quite.
Bush violated FISA. This is not a point up for debate or question, Bush violated the provisions and requirements of FISA. End of story, this is not a point debated even by serious people who SUPPORT Bush.
The question is whether or not FISA was stepping on constitutional powers that President Bush (as president) allegedly posesses. THIS point has yet to be settled, but even if it is settled in Bush's favor, the question will STILL not be whether Bush broke the law or now, it will be whether the law itself was constitutional.
Legal hairsplitting? Maybe, but a key difference. In either case, since the ONLY judicial findings we seem to have on the topic point to Bush violating the law like mad, I can't see how a reasonable person could claim that it's totally positive that he didn't illegally wiretap anyone.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Please post proof of this statement, as far as I know the Supreme Court has not said one thing about the NSA program. Since the Court operates in broad day light anything they rule is posted on the net, go find me this ruling you speak of and post it and a link.
Indeed, and in fact a real life judge ruled that his wiretapping program was illegal. Now it's very possible that decision will get overturned on appeal, but like it or not, Bush HAS been "proven guilty" until another legal authority determines otherwise.
Thanks for the correction on the # of hours under FISA. The question then begs is why the President didn't feel like he should have to bother with complying with the existing law.
While I can understand the checks and balance issue at hand, given the numbers you just presented, the FISA court is basically a rubber stamp. It doesn't appear that they're really checking anything. So I'm not quite sure I understand the outrage over not getting the court approval. It's almost like saying you didn't use a #2 pencil to fill in the little bubble next to your answer, so you fail.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
I think talking about a pardon is a little early since Bush has not been charged with any crimes and it has yet to be established that the NSA program breaks the law.
Furthermore, even if, and a big IF it is, the Supreme Court ruled the NSA program illegal that does not automatically mean the people running the program would be arrested for breaking the law.
When the court rules that the police violated someone?s fourth amendment rights by doing an illegal search they throw the evidence gathered out, but they do not then arrest the cops for the "illegal" search.
On the congress thing, congress can pass any law it wants, it is up to the Supreme Court to them rule the law unconstitutional. They could pass a law tomorrow that states the government can listen to ALL cell phone calls, all they would then have to do is convince 5 members of the court that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when making a phone call.
Read the 4th amendment again:
"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."
All they have to do is convince the judges that listening to whatever phone call is not an "unreasonable search"
NOTE: I am not advocating for congress to pass laws such a listening in to every phone call, I am just stating that they could if they wanted.
Furthermore, even if, and a big IF it is, the Supreme Court ruled the NSA program illegal that does not automatically mean the people running the program would be arrested for breaking the law.
When the court rules that the police violated someone?s fourth amendment rights by doing an illegal search they throw the evidence gathered out, but they do not then arrest the cops for the "illegal" search.
On the congress thing, congress can pass any law it wants, it is up to the Supreme Court to them rule the law unconstitutional. They could pass a law tomorrow that states the government can listen to ALL cell phone calls, all they would then have to do is convince 5 members of the court that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when making a phone call.
Read the 4th amendment again:
"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."
All they have to do is convince the judges that listening to whatever phone call is not an "unreasonable search"
NOTE: I am not advocating for congress to pass laws such a listening in to every phone call, I am just stating that they could if they wanted.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
The judge did not rule it "illegal" she ruled it "unconstitutional" slight difference there.
There is a chance her ruling could be overturned on just the simple grounds that the ACLU did not have "standing" in the case. In other words they did not have the right to sue because they were not affected by the program. Remember the "under god" court case that the Supreme Court overturned, they did it because the dad did not have "standing" in the case cause he was not the "legal guardian" of the child.
Here is the details the OP left out, the law and the retroactive amnesty for warrant less surveillance conducted under presidential authority.
The outrage is that the review of a third party was totally removed from the operation. The FISA process was NOT a rubber stamp, it was simply a process that was easy to get through...the big difference between the two is that a reasonable, properly crafter request would EASIALLY get through both, but even the small process of the FISA warrant would stop the blatant abuse most people are worried about. FISA could be more lax than a traditional court, BUT, they at least follow procedures outlined by rules of evidence and due process...the kind of bullshit the government was doing for years (spying on people like Martin Luther King Jr, spying on political enemies, etc) would not fly even with FISA. The problem with removing the FISA process is that there is NO external control at all on the program, Bush and his supporters make a lot of noise about "internal review", but all of that review is done under the executive branch...it might stop some rogue NSAer from spying on his ex-wife, but it wouldn't stop the President or those near the top from doing things we would probably rather they didn't do. And lest we forget, FISA was created because EXACTLY those kind of situations kept happening, this isn't some wild liberal rambling here...
Slight.....To disregard, as of little value and unworthy of notice; to make light of;
I'd say very slight difference.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
I am not sure of the meaning of your post, what is your point?
Words have meaning and saying something is ?illegal? implies that a law has been broken, while saying something ?unconstitutional? does not necessarily mean a law has been broken.
For example: Judge Moore?s placement of the 10 commandments in front of his court house was ruled unconstitutional because it violated the separation of church and state. However, Moore never broke any laws in placing it there and was therefore never charged with any crime. He was removed from office because he refused to abide by a Federal Court order to remove the statue, but he was never charged with ANY crime at all.
1. Failing to comply with a court ruling constitutes contempt of court, which is a crime in the US.
2. The bill in question wouldn't be a pardon so much as a retroactive changing of the rules of the FISA court to make them incompatible with the fourth amendment to the constitution, thus rendering Bush immune to prosecution for breaking the law, the same end result as a pardon.
If americans were at all concerned about their safety, they would be clamoring for improvements in mass transit, not spreading FUD about terrorism. More people die from car accidents every year than have died from terrorism in the history of the US. Even lawnmowers are more dangerous than terrorists. http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cg...f#search=%22lawnmower%20deaths%20US%22
2. The bill in question wouldn't be a pardon so much as a retroactive changing of the rules of the FISA court to make them incompatible with the fourth amendment to the constitution, thus rendering Bush immune to prosecution for breaking the law, the same end result as a pardon.
If americans were at all concerned about their safety, they would be clamoring for improvements in mass transit, not spreading FUD about terrorism. More people die from car accidents every year than have died from terrorism in the history of the US. Even lawnmowers are more dangerous than terrorists. http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cg...f#search=%22lawnmower%20deaths%20US%22
The SCOTUS has not touched the NSA warantless wiretapping case yet, however a federal judge has ruled it unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately. [link]
It was, of course, appealed, however if the judgment stands there will be legal consequences.
You seem to be forgetting we already have laws in place for "listening to whatever phone call" and if one does not comply with those laws, there are legal consequences, just like breaking any other law. The proper procedure for an Administration who cannot operate within a particular law, is to endeavor to change those laws. Improper procedure would be to simply break the laws because they don't like the way they work.
And that's precisely what the Administration has done. The only reason there hasn't been speedier legal action is because the Republicans control both sides of Congress and the Executive. Cases are slowly winding their way up to the SCOTUS, but in the meantime, the Administration continues to break the law.
Yeah... The "slight" difference is that the U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the land. As such, an action that violates any of its provisions is, by definition, illegal at that level and it trumps the provisions of any lesser statute that may attempt to legitimize the illegal act.
ProfJohn -- Like most neocon apologists, including your lame commando in chief, you try to parse and shave words and references to create an illusion of some alternate reality, and you're really piss poor at it. You haven't told us whether you're really any kind of professor, but if you are, it's obviously not in the field of English, or American law or history.
I'm sorry you didn't listen when your mother warned you that, if you didn't stop it, you'd go blind. :shocked:
Here's what you need, little boy...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter