Warrantless Wiretapping Ruled Unconstitutional

[Cypress]

NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional
Judge orders immediate halt to program

Thursday, August 17, 2006; Posted: 12:57 p.m. EDT (16:57 GMT)

(CNN) -- A federal judge on Thursday ruled that the U.S. government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately.

In a 44-page memorandum and order, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, -- who is based in Detroit, Michigan --struck down the National Security Agency's program, which she said violates the rights to free speech and privacy.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/17/domesticspying.lawsuit/index.html


Hat tip to FSB on fullpolitics for posting this first

[LadyT]

uhhh oohhhhh, now the terrorists are gonna get us

[uscitizen]

Yaaay!!!!!!!

[uscitizen]

I will steal someones thunder and mention activist judges about this time.

[OrnotBitwise]

I will steal someones thunder and mention activist judges about this time.
Activist judges with a pre 9/11 mindset.

[leaningright]

I will steal someones thunder and mention activist judges about this time.

Probably not activist judges. It was probably a correct ruling though I didn't care about the issue.

[evince]

the judge says Bush broke the fourth amendment !!!!!!!

This is earth shattering news and should be pushing the Jon Bennet story off the headlineS!!!

Will it?

[Cypress]

Judge's Ruling:

"The president of the United States ... has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders."


Wow.

A presidential blowjob looks almost quaint now, doesn't it?

[uscitizen]

the judge says Bush broke the fourth amendment !!!!!!!

This is earth shattering news and should be pushing the Jon Bennet story off the headlineS!!!

Will it?

Can you say IMPEACHMENT . He swore to uphold the constitution.

[evince]

This is the clearest case of Impeachment ever seen!

[Damocles]

the judge says Bush broke the fourth amendment !!!!!!!

This is earth shattering news and should be pushing the Jon Bennet story off the headlineS!!!

Will it?
No.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There is the matter of Executive Powers that you all seem to want to ignore here. The Constitution is clear on this, and it's been challenged numerous times throughout history. The President is obligated by the Constitution to fulfill his oath of office, and his power to do this in national security issues, always supersedes judicial or legislative orders, always has, and always must. If you take this authority from the elected president, you can give it to the legislative or judicial branch, or you can deny anyone this explicit power, either way, you cripple the government's ability to provide the one thing they are responsible foremost to provide, security for the citizenry. Decisions that must be made in a matter of seconds or minutes, would have to be presided over by judges or litigated by partisan politico's, and the opportunity to make effective decisions and take effective action, is lost.

[Cypress]

No.


LOL

I agree with you.

Jon Benet Ramsey will take precendence over a presidential violation of the U.S. constitution.

[uscitizen]

I just finished emailing all my state and federal level representatives.
If the USA lets this slide , the rest of the constitution will sooner or later fall into the abyss.

[Immanuel]

All I can say is, "What took so long?"

Immie

[Damocles]

LOL

I agree with you.

Jon Benet Ramsey will take precendence over a presidential violation of the U.S. constitution.
There is no punishment for following policies that are later deemed unconstitutional. If there was we would consistently change congress each time they passed a law that was unconstitutional. It is a bit ridiculous to state that a branch of the government went and did something unconstitutional so we should burn down that particular branch. It happens all the time....

[OrnotBitwise]

There is no punishment for following policies that are later deemed unconstitutional. If there was we would consistently change congress each time they passed a law that was unconstitutional. It is a bit ridiculous to state that a branch of the government went and did something unconstitutional so we should burn down that particular branch. It happens all the time....
The question is whether they honestly thought it was not unconstitutional or were simply trying to get away with as much as they could. Frankly, I find the logic by which it was claimed to be constitutional pretty absurd. And impeaching a president does not equate with burning down the executive branch. Quite the opposite, if you think about it.

Bush is a lame duck already: I doubt that there will be any strong motion toward impeachent. The Dems will certainly use it as amunition in the next two elections, however.

[Cypress]

There is no punishment for following policies that are later deemed unconstitutional. If there was we would consistently change congress each time they passed a law that was unconstitutional. It is a bit ridiculous to state that a branch of the government went and did something unconstitutional so we should burn down that particular branch. It happens all the time....

That's what I just wrote on the other board.

Ruling a law or program doesn't mean a "crime" was committed. Programs are rule unconstitutional all the time.

Other factors would have to be looked at: did Bush really believe he was acting constitutionally? Or is there evidence that they knowingly advanced weak and specious arguments supporting their program, in an effort to knowingly subvert the authority of congress and the courts? And what about the implementation of the plan? Were there any criminal abuses by the adminstration?

[evince]

(CNN) -- A federal judge on Thursday ruled that the U.S. government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately.


The defendants "are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and Internet communications, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Title III," she wrote.

She further declared that the program "violates the separation of powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III."

She went on to say that "The president of the United States ... has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders."

[Damocles]

The question is whether they honestly thought it was not unconstitutional or were simply trying to get away with as much as they could. Frankly, I find the logic by which it was claimed to be constitutional pretty absurd. And impeaching a president does not equate with burning down the executive branch. Quite the opposite, if you think about it.

Bush is a lame duck already: I doubt that there will be any strong motion toward impeachent. The Dems will certainly use it as amunition in the next two elections, however.
"burning down" was a metaphor. There is no provision for impeachment because of this ruling. Now, if he continued to do it regardless of the ruling then it would be impeachment territory. It was not ruled "unconstitutional" until it was ruled...

Yes, it is the "letter" rather than the spirit, but that is simply how it works.

[klaatu]

"burning down" was a metaphor. There is no provision for impeachment because of this ruling. Now, if he continued to do it regardless of the ruling then it would be impeachment territory. It was not ruled "unconstitutional" until it was ruled...

Yes, it is the "letter" rather than the spirit, but that is simply how it works.


Strong points ...

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I also don't believe this liberal activist federal judge is the final arbiter on what is and isn't Constitutional.

[maineman]

I seem to recall Dixie saying that there was no way this was unconstitutional on the other site...

kinda like his prediction about only 500 more dead Americans - not worth a bucket of warm spit.

[evince]

when did people who call themselfs Americans become anti constitution?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

when did people who call themselfs Americans become anti constitution?


After Gore lost the 2000 election I think... some would argue, it was during the Clinton impeachment hearings, but I give them the benefit of the doubt on that.

[OrnotBitwise]

There is the matter of Executive Powers that you all seem to want to ignore here. The Constitution is clear on this, and it's been challenged numerous times throughout history. The President is obligated by the Constitution to fulfill his oath of office, and his power to do this in national security issues, always supersedes judicial or legislative orders, always has, and always must. If you take this authority from the elected president, you can give it to the legislative or judicial branch, or you can deny anyone this explicit power, either way, you cripple the government's ability to provide the one thing they are responsible foremost to provide, security for the citizenry. Decisions that must be made in a matter of seconds or minutes, would have to be presided over by judges or litigated by partisan politico's, and the opportunity to make effective decisions and take effective action, is lost.
I believe that the presidency has "aquired," let us say, far too much power as it is. It needs to be taken down several pegs.

Much of the responsibility for this situation rests with Congress, of course, but that's water under the proverbial bridge.

[Damocles]

when did people who call themselfs Americans become anti constitution?
Exactly who are you talking about?

I think this is as mythical as the people who ask why lefties hate America...

[OrnotBitwise]

Exactly who are you talking about?

I think this is as mythical as the people who ask why lefties hate America...
Well, most of us do hate America. We tend to prefer CSNY and -- sad to say -- The Eagles.



Oh, wait . . . wrong thread. My bad. :o

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I believe that the presidency has "aquired," let us say, far too much power as it is. It needs to be taken down several pegs.

Much of the responsibility for this situation rests with Congress, of course, but that's water under the proverbial bridge.

The responsibility for the Executive powers can not rest with Congress, that in itself, is un-Constitutional. The structure of our government is based on the concept of 'seperate but equal branches' and there is no way to absolve one of the three branches of its power and cede it to another, the Constitution doesn't allow that provision, nor can Congress legislate it or a court order it. A Constitutional Amendment could be passed to do this, and then ratified by the states, but it would open the debate over our very type of government, and would likely not pass.

The President's executive powers in national security matters, is well-established and supported by Constitutional scholars, as well as the courts and Congress. Throughout our history, presidents have utilized their executive authority to supercede legislative and judicial finding in order to protect the American people. Although it's a different situation and circumstance, the FDR internment of Japanese-Americans is a prime example of this authority in action, and unless we want to retroactively prosecute FDR for violating the Constitution, we can't retroactively prosecute Bush.

[Care4all]

Strong points ...

What is the strong point? That we have no constitutional rights until it is "ruled" on? HOgwash!

[evince]

according to Dixie the constitution only applies if Bush allows it to.

Bush said the war on terror is unending.
He can suspend any part of the constitution while in war.

THUS we have no constitution.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

according to Dixie the constitution only applies if Bush allows it to.

Bush said the war on terror is unending.
He can suspend any part of the constitution while in war.

THUS we have no constitution.


Nahh, that's not what I said at all, but I fully understand why you need to lie to people about it. The president retains the authority to suspend individual rights based on a threat to national security, much the same way a law enforcement officer can suspend your individual right to posess a firearm, if he deems you have committed a crime with it or are a threat to do so. Now, you can take the officer's ability to do this away, and demand that bank robbers and criminals not be denied their Constitutional right to bear arms, but the question is, do you really want to do that?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Basically, what the judge ruled today, was that international terrorists who aren't even citizens of America, have the constitutional right to privacy and freedom of speech, to be able to make phone calls into this country and discuss anything they desire in private, without the government listening, and matters of national security, simply don't factor into it.

[Care4all]

fyi, Congress has oversight responsibility over the Executive branch....(Ending with impeachment)

The Executive Branch has oversight responsibility over congress... (via the VETO...)

That is how it works...

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

fyi, Congress has oversight responsibility over the Executive branch....(Ending with impeachment)

The Executive Branch has oversight responsibility over congress... (via the VETO...)

That is how it works...

And there was oversight with the NSA program as well, no one is arguing "oversight." We are discussing Executive Powers, and the president certainly does have some, and it certainly does supersede legislative and judicial powers in certain instances. It's rare, it's not typical, but it is allowed under the Constitution, and it has been supported in the past by the courts as well as Congress.

The executive branch will appeal this, and it will eventually be overturned, perhaps by the Supreme Court, so this issue is far from 'settled'.

[Cypress]

And there was oversight with the NSA program as well, no one is arguing "oversight." We are discussing Executive Powers, and the president certainly does have some, and it certainly does supersede legislative and judicial powers in certain instances. It's rare, it's not typical, but it is allowed under the Constitution, and it has been supported in the past by the courts as well as Congress.

The executive branch will appeal this, and it will eventually be overturned, perhaps by the Supreme Court, so this issue is far from 'settled'.

No one has said Bush can't wiretap. We WANT him too.

The court has ruled he can't wiretap in the United States, without FISA oversight.

[Care4all]

And there was oversight with the NSA program as well, no one is arguing "oversight." We are discussing Executive Powers, and the president certainly does have some, and it certainly does supersede legislative and judicial powers in certain instances. It's rare, it's not typical, but it is allowed under the Constitution, and it has been supported in the past by the courts as well as Congress.

The executive branch will appeal this, and it will eventually be overturned, perhaps by the Supreme Court, so this issue is far from 'settled'.

It NEVER supercedes judicial branch...they are the ones that determine if the president's executive order or supposed executive power is constitutional...

I believe it was Truman that tried to take over the Steal mills when they went on strike during a war and the supreme court ruled it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL for him to do that....

The Supreme court has the "oversite" power on the executive branch as well as the legislative too...and the congress has oversite over the supreme court...they can impeach a supreme court justice....

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It NEVER supercedes judicial branch...they are the ones that determine if the president's executive order or supposed executive power is constitutional...

I believe it was Truman that tried to take over the Steal mills when they went on strike during a war and the supreme court ruled it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL for him to do that....

The Supreme court has the "oversite" power on the executive branch as well as the legislative too...and the congress has oversite over the supreme court...they can impeach a supreme court justice....

You are talking about something besides "oversight." The Supremes can rule on Constitutionality, but this is only because the legislative and executive branches allow it, for functional purposes. Each branch has delegated responsibility and authority, and neither of them can supersede what the others do, with regard to their enumerated powers. Granted, a court or legislature can determine case by case, what is or isn't a viable and legitimate enumerated power.

[klaatu]

Well, most of us do hate America. We tend to prefer CSNY and -- sad to say -- The Eagles.



Oh, wait . . . wrong thread. My bad. :o


lol

[klaatu]

i can see both sides of this issue ... I understand Dixies argument when he says ... "Decisions that must be made in a matter of seconds or minutes" in the manner of National Security. I guess it depends on how one looks at this War .. if you believe it is a War. I think we all need to step back and ask of ourselves; Are you willing to give up some rights in order to preserve National Security .. if you truly believe we are in a War ..the answer should be yes ... if you dont think we are in a War .. the answer is going to be a resounding no.
Now Bush obviously thinks thinks he is a War time President which would give more powers to act hastily than a Peace Time President ... and he acted on it ...
The question remains ... is he a War time President?

[ib1yysguy]

It appears Dixie still doesn't understand the FISA allows for immediate action. Either that or he's just stupid. That's within the realm of possibility since we already know he's a liar.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It appears Dixie still doesn't understand the FISA allows for immediate action. Either that or he's just stupid. That's within the realm of possibility since we already know he's a liar.


Look, what I understand is this... The NSA routinely monitors the incoming and outgoing transmission of telephone signals overseas, and has done so for many years, it's not illegal to do so. This is where you hear the term "chatter" come from. They hear thousands of voices and they are deciphering on the fly, looking for key words, things that would indicate a pattern, when they detect something such as this, they report it. As well they should, we are hoping to avert another 9/11 from happening, right?

Okay, if you are with me so far, continue on... if not, re-read what you just read again until you understand the way the root intelligence is done. Once a pattern of phrases or terms that might indicate a terror plot is heard and defined, a decision has to be made to listen to the isolated conversations before they stop. This might be any time, there is no way to determine this without listening in further on the conversation. What do you think we should do at this point? Wait for FISA? And what do we have them ask FISA? Can we listen and see if this pattern of a particular phrase is a terror plot? Well... maybe they will get to it after lunch tomorrow... no big deal. Right?

Remember, we don't know what is being planned or plotted and for when. We know what the pattern in the chatter indicates and nothing more. Bush says we can listen and see if the isolated conversation is pertaining to a terror plot or national security threat, and if it's not it's not, but sometimes this might not be so clear or easy to determine. FISA can't issue a warrant to wiretap, based on suspect chatter that may or may not be terror related for individuals that haven't been disclosed. The judge says that Bush needs a court order to wiretap anyone, and the chatter can't be isolated and monitored without violating the 4th. You had all better hope this isn't how it ends up, because if this stands, our gooses are cooked, we can't monitor the chatter any further and we can't protect the country from outside terror attacks.

[ib1yysguy]

Look, what I understand is this... The NSA routinely monitors the incoming and outgoing transmission of telephone signals overseas, and has done so for many years,

Right.


it's not illegal to do so.

Um, the court says your wrong since this "chatter" bull, in so far as pulling intelligence by eaves dropping on people without warrants, was part of what was ruled unconstitutional.


This might be any time, there is no way to determine this without listening in further on the conversation. What do you think we should do at this point? Wait for FISA?

Again, you appear to be totally ignorant of the fact that FISA allows you to take immediate action and seek a warrant after the fact.... which is the point I made that inspired this response of yours... which proves my point that you are totally ignorant of the fact that FISA allows the gov't to take immediate action.

[Annie]

Right.



Um, the court says your wrong since this "chatter" bull, in so far as pulling intelligence by eaves dropping on people without warrants, was part of what was ruled unconstitutional.



Again, you appear to be totally ignorant of the fact that FISA allows you to take immediate action and seek a warrant after the fact.... which is the point I made that inspired this response of yours... which proves my point that you are totally ignorant of the fact that FISA allows the gov't to take immediate action.

Regardless of legality, do you really think that taking it to this court was the brightest thing to do? In all liklihood it appeal will be ongoing during the election, do you think that's best for the Democrats?

[ib1yysguy]

Regardless of legality, do you really think that taking it to this court was the brightest thing to do? In all liklihood it appeal will be ongoing during the election, do you think that's best for the Democrats?

Going through the justice system is what is best for America. Democrats be damned.

[ib1yysguy]

But going through the trial during the election, with one ruling against the Republicans already on the table, is certainly not bad for the Dems.

[Annie]

But going through the trial during the election, with one ruling against the Republicans already on the table, is certainly not bad for the Dems.

Unless of course, they have a good prosecutor connecting the dots? Not too mention the possibility of SCOTUS ruling that it's legal?

[maineman]

I love it when Dixie tries to act like a constitutional scholar...it is even funnier than watching Bill Frist diagnose Terri Schiavo via videotape.

[Annie]

I love it when Dixie tries to act like a constitutional scholar...it is even funnier than watching Bill Frist diagnose Terri Schiavo via videotape.

Wow, I'm impressed with the deflection! Good job. Terry Schiavo being crossed with NSA!

[maineman]

the point is...Dixie is a redneck guy who develops film for a living and is NOT a constitutional scholar, nor an expert on the middle east, but he regales us with his pontifications on those subjects ad nauseum.

But I wouldn't expect you to care.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Right.



Um, the court says your wrong since this "chatter" bull, in so far as pulling intelligence by eaves dropping on people without warrants, was part of what was ruled unconstitutional.



Again, you appear to be totally ignorant of the fact that FISA allows you to take immediate action and seek a warrant after the fact.... which is the point I made that inspired this response of yours... which proves my point that you are totally ignorant of the fact that FISA allows the gov't to take immediate action.


No, it's not un-Constitutional or illegal for the NSA to monitor the airwaves for chatter. The Constitution does not cover monitoring of international airwave frequencies, and neither does US law. It's one of our most well-established technological surveillance tools, and has been for quite some time, since before you were born, actually. The chatter is not eavesdrop, because you can't discern the full context of conversation, you are only aware of patterns, nothing more.

In the process of isolating the specific chatter and monitoring the sender/recipient, a violation of the 4th is occurring, according to the judge. Without this ability, the monitoring is restricted to chatter only, and dependent upon a judge in court, as to whether the weight of the chatter is worthy of a wiretap warrant. Essentially, it kills the ability for intelligence to hone in on a potential terror plot and stop it before it happens. Liberal ACLU types, just made America less safe.

[Damocles]

What is the strong point? That we have no constitutional rights until it is "ruled" on? HOgwash!

Whooop, Whoop!! Strawman Alert!!! Whoop Whooop! Strawman Alert!

I have never stated such. I stated that it would be unprecedented to impeach over this and also a bit ridiculous. Just as Congress often passes laws that are unconstitutional and suffers no punishment other than having them struck down, and courts consistently have their decisions overturned by higher ones without retribution and getting fired, the Executive also does not get fired for having a ruling go against them on this.

We are not all constitutional scholars, that is why we have the courts.

[Damocles]

Right.



Um, the court says your wrong since this "chatter" bull, in so far as pulling intelligence by eaves dropping on people without warrants, was part of what was ruled unconstitutional.



Again, you appear to be totally ignorant of the fact that FISA allows you to take immediate action and seek a warrant after the fact.... which is the point I made that inspired this response of yours... which proves my point that you are totally ignorant of the fact that FISA allows the gov't to take immediate action.


One must remember that this will go through appeal and likely finish at the SCOTUS. At that time we can be assured of the ruling, until then it is simply preliminary.

[Annie]

the point is...Dixie is a redneck guy who develops film for a living and is NOT a constitutional scholar, nor an expert on the middle east, but he regales us with his pontifications on those subjects ad nauseum.

But I wouldn't expect you to care.

Deflection #2. Good job!

[maineman]

no deflection at all.... a federal judge has agreed with all of the democrats on here who were screaming that Bush had violated not only the letter of the LAW (i.e. FISA) but the Constitution itself (4th Amendment) and Dixie, the wannabe legal scholar, was saying that we didn't know what we were talking about....now that a learned federal judge who has been on the bench for 27 years has called it exactly the way we called it, Dixie is saying that SHE doesn't know what the fuck she is talking about.

Don't you find that even a little bit laughable?

Did Dixie stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?

Come on! Dixie, the one hour photo guy, is telling a federal judge that her interpretation of the law ans the constitution is wrong???? What's next? Will Dixie tell us that it's impossible to cut something into three equal pieces? (ooops.... he's already done that!) Will he tell us that God gives him stock tips in the shower?(oops...he's already done that) Will Dixie tell us that American forces will "win" the war against the insurgency before even EIGHT more American GI's have died? (oops... he's already done that too)

[Damocles]

I prefer to wait for a higher jurisdiction to rule on this particular case. Otherwise you may end up with egg on your face. Consistently the courts are overturned by higher courts with a different legal opinion. Now, if we take the left's POV on this, that must mean that the Judge who ruled incorrectly should be impeached. I guess the 9th Circuit should no longer exist then....

[Care4all]

Whooop, Whoop!! Strawman Alert!!! Whoop Whooop! Strawman Alert!

I have never stated such. I stated that it would be unprecedented to impeach over this and also a bit ridiculous. Just as Congress often passes laws that are unconstitutional and suffers no punishment other than having them struck down, and courts consistently have their decisions overturned by higher ones without retribution and getting fired, the Executive also does not get fired for having a ruling go against them on this.

We are not all constitutional scholars, that is why we have the courts.

When Truman was brought to court for taking over the steel mills, the supreme court said that Truman, although he broke the constitution and Law, notified ALL OF CONGRESS IMMEDIATELY upon his actions of taking over the mills and requested ALL OF congress to write legislation to cover his ass...(basically)..... He did NOTHING IN SECRET, from ALL of congress....Congress was aware of all of his actions and intent.

This was not the case with President Bush, he chose to HIDE ALL of his actions from the entire Intelligence commitees and by law was required to inform the whole committees....He also said to Congress, "I don't need you", complete opposite of Truman.... President Bush also took Law and totally ignored it, such as FISA, even when Congress objected to it..... once again, spitting in my representative's face.... Truman did no such thing....

It would be interesting to see a nonpartisan supreme court make a decision on GWB's illegal actions and intent....
But the Court is STACKED by Bush with his last two SC choices, all rulings will go his way.... :(

care

[uscitizen]

You prefer to wait, but then follow up with some wild assed assumptions :)

[Damocles]

He was able to replace two who basically would have ruled his way anyway. It is foolish to think that these people retire when a President who will place an opposite ideologue is in power.

[maineman]

there will still not be "egg on my face". I realize full well that the Supremes are a totally political court owned by the republican party and cannot be counted on to rule with any sort of unbiased jurisprudence...the fact that they so willingly abandoned their staunch state's rights positions to annoint Dubya as President by overturning the authority of the Florida Supreme Court to supervise its own state's election process is a prime example of that. The fact will remain that a well respected federal judge has ruled that the Bush administration violated the law and the constitution. The ruling's condemnation of Bush's violations of the incredibly lax procedures of FISA is pretty direct and quite damning...

[Damocles]

The same constitution gives the SCOTUS the power over such rulings. To say, "It doesn't matter because I don't like their opinion, but I like this judge's opinion" really is moot. The Constitution gives them the power, they are the last word.

I couldn't care much less about you having "egg" anywhere near your anatomy.

[Care4all]

He was able to replace two who basically would have ruled his way anyway. It is foolish to think that these people retire when a President who will place an opposite ideologue is in power.

Dreamland damo....

no way would sandra day oconnor rule the same as Alito....

already alito with his DIFFERING opinion than Sandra Day has tipped the scale.....

how could you even think that Alito is the same type of Justice as Sandra Day?

he tipped the scale and stacked the court in favor of Bush and the unitarians... period... imo.

as an example, our government can now charge and arrest the press for releasing classified information that they received....this was Alito that tipped the scale, infavor of this....

even though our first amendment says Congress shall make NO LAW regarding the control or restriction of the press....

care

[klaatu]

What is the strong point? That we have no constitutional rights until it is "ruled" on? HOgwash!


Bullshit .. the strong point is as he said .. if he continues in violation of the judges ruling .. let the impeachment proceedings begin .. otherwise you are still searching for the smoking gun ....

although I do love this line ...

“There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution,” she wrote in a 48-page ruling. “So all ‘inherent powers’ must derive from that Constitution.”

[maineman]

my only point, damo, was that Dixie had been crowing for weeks and weeks that anyone who thought that this program vioated any part of FISA or the 4th Amendment was totally out to lunch and didn't know squat about the law.... now it seems that there is a judge with 27 years on the bench who is of the opinion that Dixie is dumber than a sack of hair.

[uscitizen]

Right on Maineman!
But of course film developer Dixie knows more about the law and constitution than any old judge. I sure feel comoforted that we have such brilliant people watching over our judicial system ;)

[klaatu]

Right on Maineman!
But of course film developer Dixie knows more about the law and constitution than any old judge. I sure feel comoforted that we have such brilliant people watching over our judicial system ;)

With this logic everyone who has issued a post in this thread deserves the same tongue lashing .. no?

[uscitizen]

Not me Klaatu, I just took the judges ruling at face value and stated that violating the constitution is an impeachable offense. Just a conclusion based on an expert judges ruling and very basic law allowing impeachment for such an offense.

[Care4all]

“There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution,” she wrote in a 48-page ruling. “So all ‘inherent powers’ must derive from that Constitution.”


I could not have said it better....

I disagree with the people that think that the president can IGNORE the Constitution because of some unitary presidential power, as President Bush and his cronies believe....

I disagree that the president can break the constitution when he swore to uphold it....the only thing he has to swear to do, when being inaugerated.

AN OATH!!!!

the way Damo's comment and your comment came out, acts as though the president CAN CHOOSE TO IGNOR OUR CONSTITUTION and ALL of that is all hunky dorey, until a judge rules on it...and quite frankly , YOU BOTH ARE WRONG on this....

and I am not all on the bandwaggon to impeach Bush for this one thing....I think Bush should be impeached for a hundred different things that he has done.....al accumilated in to one big IMPEACHMENT DUE...in order for Justice to prevail. :D

[Damocles]

Dreamland damo....

no way would sandra day oconnor rule the same as Alito....

already alito with his DIFFERING opinion than Sandra Day has tipped the scale.....


Why did she choose to retire then? It was because she knew and wanted her replacement to be chosen by Bush. To pretend otherwise is self-indulgent at best, Care4all...




how could you even think that Alito is the same type of Justice as Sandra Day?


Not the same, but Sandra knew what she was doing retiring with Bush in office.



he tipped the scale and stacked the court in favor of Bush and the unitarians... period... imo.

And IMO, she helped it happen by choosing to retire when she knew that Bush would be selecting her replacement. Do you remember who put her in?



as an example, our government can now charge and arrest the press for releasing classified information that they received....this was Alito that tipped the scale, infavor of this....


Repeating again, she chose when she retired knowing who would select her replacement. Which was my point. These people choose when they retire, they do it carefully knowing who will select their replacements.



even though our first amendment says Congress shall make NO LAW regarding the control or restriction of the press....

care
"abridging the freedom of the press..."

Anyway, which exact ruling was this? As far as I understand they can hold them for contempt until they give up their source who broke the law, not arrest and hold them for writing what they did....

Either way it doesn't change my point, she selected who would make her replacement choice. They all do. She could have held on until Bush left office, many do....

[Care4all]

Why did she choose to retire then? It was because she knew and wanted her replacement to be chosen by Bush. To pretend otherwise is self-indulgent at best, Care4all...

Not the same, but Sandra knew what she was doing retiring with Bush in office.

And IMO, she helped it happen by choosing to retire when she knew that Bush would be selecting her replacement. Do you remember who put her in?



Repeating again, she chose when she retired knowing who would select her replacement. Which was my point. These people choose when they retire, they do it carefully knowing who will select their replacements.


"abridging the freedom of the press..."

Anyway, which exact ruling was this? As far as I understand they can hold them for contempt until they give up their source who broke the law, not arrest and hold them for writing what they did....

Either way it doesn't change my point, she selected who would make her replacement choice. They all do. She could have held on until Bush left office, many do....



Her husband is sick and dying, she is old and unlike many men...she knew that family comes first....she would have retired Bush's first term, but WAITED to see if someone else REPLACED him, before retiring.....perhaps hoping for a new president to replace herself... she differed with the Bush cronies on most everything...to pretend now that she WANTED BUSH to replace herself with someone like Alito, a unitarian who's philosophy she totally differed with, is utterly ridiculous in my opinion and I have no idea where you could get such and idea or even make such a comment or come to such a conclusion Damo?

[Damocles]

Her husband is sick and dying, she is old and unlike many men...she knew that family comes first....she would have retired Bush's first term, but WAITED to see if someone else REPLACED him, before retiring.....perhaps hoping for a new president to replace herself... she differed with the Bush cronies on most everything...to pretend now that she WANTED BUSH to replace herself with someone like Alito, a unitarian who's philosophy she totally differed with, is utterly ridiculous in my opinion and I have no idea where you could get such and idea or even make such a comment or come to such a conclusion Damo?
It still doesn't change that many have waited through even worse before. And you still didn't answer. Do you remember who put her there?

You keep thinking that her political philosophy was 100% different than and opposite of Bush. I don't necessarily think that a truth. I do understand that they choose who is going to select their replacement by choosing the time of retirement.

[klaatu]

“There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution,” she wrote in a 48-page ruling. “So all ‘inherent powers’ must derive from that Constitution.”


I could not have said it better....

I disagree with the people that think that the president can IGNORE the Constitution because of some unitary presidential power, as President Bush and his cronies believe....

I disagree that the president can break the constitution when he swore to uphold it....the only thing he has to swear to do, when being inaugerated.

AN OATH!!!!

the way Damo's comment and your comment came out, acts as though the president CAN CHOOSE TO IGNOR OUR CONSTITUTION and ALL of that is all hunky dorey, until a judge rules on it...and quite frankly , YOU BOTH ARE WRONG on this....

:D


For one .. I will be the first to admit that I am very weak when it comes to Constituional Law ..so I try to avoid ..to borrow from Orielly ...bloviating in an area that I will become quickly overmatched .. :cool:
But ..it is not without precedent that a President will go beyond Constitutional Authority during War time ...

WHAT IS THE CONSTITUTION'S ROLE IN WARTIME?:
Why Free Speech And Other Rights Are Not As Safe As You Might Think
By SANFORD LEVINSON
----
Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2001

Does law speak in time of war? And, if so, to whom, and how loudly? No question is more important to a polity that claims to be structured by constitutional norms.

The United States Constitution contains no "emergency power" or general "suspension" clause of the kind found in the Weimar Constitution or the current Indian Constitution. It is difficult to read our constitutional history, however, without believing that the Constitution is often reduced at best to a whisper during times of war.

The most obvious source of examples to support this proposition is the Lincoln presidency. Indeed, one of Lincoln's first acts was to order suspension of habeas corpus.

The Constitution does allow the suspension of habeas corpus — in the single clause that establishes even a limited authority to abrogate law in wartime. This clause, however, appears in Section 9 of Article I — the Article defining Congress' powers — not in Article II, where the President's powers are defined. That placement strongly suggests that Congress must grant prior authorization when habeas corpus is suspended. In 1861, Lincoln had no such authorization.

Early in his career, Lincoln had spoken of "reverence for the laws" as the "political religion of the nation." He also called on all Americans to "swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others."

How then, did Lincoln defend his unilateral suspension of habeas corpus? He made the claim — a dubious one, as noted above — that the Constitution empowered him to do so. But he also posed a rhetorical question: If "all the laws, but one, [are] to go unexecuted, and the government itself to go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" Lincoln knew most citizens would favor the suspension of habeas corpus over the destruction of the government, given the choice.

The Emancipation Proclamation

Later, with a stroke of the pen Lincoln, in the Emancipation Proclamation, unilaterally ordered one of the most extensive confiscations of "property" in world history. His authority was based on "the power in me vested as Commander-in Chief . . . and as a fit an necessary war measure." One could plausibly view this as a violation of the Constitution's prohibition on the government's taking property without due process or compensation.

Consider the response of one newspaper that supported the Proclamation: "Nobody pretends this act is constitutional, and nobody cares whether it is or not."


Justice Benjamin R. Curtis quoted this newspaper's comment in his pamphlet attacking the Proclamation. Curtis deemed the Proclamation a particular "cause for alarm" in that it showed, he thought, a "tendency to lawlessness" even by public officials. "[P]ublic servants may themselves break the fundamental law of the country . . . in violation of their solemn oath of office; and 'nobody cares,'" Curtis complained, suggesting that Lincoln, with the Proclamation, broke his oath to uphold the Constitution.

I suspect that most of us find Curtis's concerns almost beside the point. Ironically, though, that simply establishes the validity of his basic insight: Even today, nobody cares.



Of course, it is not only the Lincoln presidency that exemplifies the truth behind Justice Holmes's assertion that ordinary constitutional norms may be relaxed "when a nation is at war."

Indeed, Holmes himself wrote the infamous anti-free speech Debs opinion for the Supreme Court. The opinion allowed Eugene Debs, the leading socialist politician in our history, to be jailed for ten years because he had expressed opposition to World War I.

Years later, in 1951, the Court still viewed speech in wartime (Cold War-time) much the same way. In Dennis v. U.S., the Court upheld the imprisonment of top leaders of the Communist Party.

The Court's rationale? In part, it based its decision upon the rule suggested by Learned Hand that the ability of the state to punish speech should be the result of multiplying the likelihood of the threatened event by the "gravity" of the evil. The formula, of course, is troubling: A threat that is extremely unlikely to become reality, but is also extremely grave, might still justify suppressing speech.

To be sure, Dennis and Debs seem implicitly to have been overruled by the 1969 Brandenburg decision. There, the Court overturned Ku Klux Klansman Clarence Brandenburg's conviction for calling for "revengeance" against blacks, Jews, and Catholics, on the ground that the conviction violated the First Amendment.

Still, the barest acquaintance with American constitutional history teaches that nothing is necessarily forever. In 1969, Brandenburg was viewed as basically irrelevant; society, in the Sixties, seemed to have triumphed over the Klan.

Would today's Supreme Court be as protective of a vocal supporter of Osama bin Laden? What if the speaker were a Moslem resident alien identified with a radical Islamic fundamental group? And what if the speech were given to other members of the same radical group — calling for participation in a "jihad" against a hated United States?



Congressional Protection of Civil Liberties?

If we cannot look to the Court to protect our civil liberties in the coming years, we can at least ask Congress to do so. Perhaps unexpected–some might say unholy–coalitions in Congress between Representatives like Bob Barr and Barney Frank will spring up.

Or perhaps usually opposed groups like the National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union, who claim to be able to hear a resonant Constitution that speaks during times of war, may see a common interest. One can scarcely be optimistic about these coalitions or groups prevailing, however.

Many readers may find "optimism" the wrong word; they might instead endorse the claims of Attorney General Ashcroft that emergency does indeed call for the maximum exercise of governmental power and concomitantly flexible constitutional interpretation.

Or perhaps they might agree with Alabama Senator Richard Shelby that the United States in effect should emulate Great Britain by passing the equivalent of an "Official Secrets Act." The Act could make it a criminal offense to receive information that the recipient knows to be classified, a proposal that would already be law were it not for a courageous veto by former President Clinton late in his term. (It helped, no doubt, that Clinton was encouraged to exercise the veto by almost every major news organization.)

The most serious constitutional debates in coming weeks will take place in plain view, as it were — in the nation's editorial and letters-to-the-editor columns, on talk shows, and in Congress.

All Americans have a vital stake in the outcome of these debates and all, therefore, should feel empowered to participate in them. One scarcely needs legal training in order to understand the basic issues posed by "balancing" national security claims against traditional individual liberties. This is not a situation where "experts" can tell us what to do — it is one in which we must look to our own conscience, values and beliefs.


In any event, it is naïve to believe that the Supreme Court will invalidate any government action that receives both congressional and presidential imprimatur as necessary and proper to protect Americans against the terrorist threat. If our liberties are to be protected, it is up to us to protect them.


http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20011017_levinson.html

[uscitizen]

Umm, this is not a legal declared state of war.

[Care4all]

K- I guess I just fall in to the category of "someone" who does care.... which are few and far between.... as the article stated!

[Damocles]

I care. I believe that the SCOTUS does also care. I also believe in declaring war. How I stand and what I believe does little to change what I predict. I understand that often the world works against what I believe. I believe that I would have objected to Japanese Internment camps. I know I would have objected to my Aunt and Uncle (Volga Germans) who were sent to work camps in Georgetown because of their lack of English skills... Does it change what happened? Not one iota.

I do know that when such is the case and we start going in this direction, over time the nation realizes where we have gone and turns it around. I believe in the US because of the citizens. I believe in them because of past performance. Over time this will, thankfully, correct.

[maineman]

With this logic everyone who has issued a post in this thread deserves the same tongue lashing .. no?

it has little to do with opinion, and everything to do with tone. It is one thing to disagree with a president or a congressman or a judge...it is another thing entirely to refer to any and all who disagree with YOUR opinion as a pinhead.

When Dixie so pompously denigrates all on the left as being completely wrong on an issue, he begs us to bring those pompous pronouncements back to rub in his face when he is proven wrong.....

for example: as of today, 492 Americans have died since the day that Dixie proudly predicted that we would be out of Iraq before 500 more Americans had died there. I will never shy away from letting him know that by his unabashed and uncritical pompom waving for his hero in blue jeans, the blood of those 492 brave young men and women is caked on his fingers.

[evince]

U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment
Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure


Amendment Text | Annotations
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.


I just thought some might need a reminder of what it actually says.