Supreme Court Limits Warrantless Car Searches

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

WC, what about this court case? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush

Doesn't the Court's ruling ties the hands of the President?

---

We are discussing the laws pertaining to unwarranted searches. Not habeas corpus. How does this have anything to do with blocking faithfully performing his duty?

Please stay on topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

What is your legal definition of "faithfully"?

Your reasoning is positively Nixonian.

---

I defined it in an earlier posting. Please stop being such a chump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I defined it in an earlier posting. Please stop being such a chump.

---

Could you direct me to it.

And please provide actual case history to support your definition.

That's how these things are done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Could you direct me to it.

And please provide actual case history to support your definition.

That's how these things are done.

---

And let you watse my time like you are in that other thread with Miami...

No, you're in one of your circle-jerk modes. I'm not playing your game today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

And let you watse my time like you are in that other thread with Miami...

No, you're in one of your circle-jerk modes. I'm not playing your game today.

---

No really, I would like to see how Wild Cobra's constitutional scholarship relates to actual case law.

I'm still waiting for Wild Cobra to quote where on the US Constitution it clearly states that the Executive branch is allowed interpret the US Constitution and unilaterally decide what constitutes breaking any law. Last I checked that was reserved to the judicial branch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

That is not an acceptable answer because it does not apply to this scenario. It applies to lower levels.

If you showed a precedent that applied to the fourth amendment and article II, I missed it. I know there was past ruling that suggested such a thing in a ruling. That too was not absolute. It still authorized the practice as long as it was reviewed in the aftermath. Is that the one you mean?

---

I'd be interested to see where in the centuries of Fourth Amendment scholarship anyone has said that existing precedent applies only to non-Presidential executive action.

FISA solves the problem of post-hoc review by allowing a short period of warrantless surveillance but requiring that after the permissible time for proceeding without a warrant has passed, an application must be made to the FISC. Again, how does that interfere with the President's ability to "faithfully execute" the laws, as you say?

Basically, WC accepts a novel theory of executive power as if it were dispositive retroactively. Because it is true in his own mind, it is for the rest of us.

The courts just haven't caught up with him yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

We are discussing the laws pertaining to unwarranted searches. Not habeas corpus. How does this have anything to do with blocking faithfully performing his duty?

Please stay on topic.

---

You said that law cannot bind the President's hands from executing his job faithfully, correct? That's your argument? well, does that also pertain to Supreme Court decisions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Basically, WC accepts a novel theory of executive power as if it were dispositive retroactively. Because it is true in his own mind, it is for the rest of us.

The courts just haven't caught up with him yet.

---

To be fair, maybe his Constitutional professor was John Yoo?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

To be fair, maybe his Constitutional professor was John Yoo?

---

To be fair, Jack Goldsmith -- nobody's liberal -- withdrew the Yoo memos as being bad advice and utterly devoid of any legal basis.

But why let history and facts get in the way of sweeping abstractions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

To be fair, Jack Goldsmith -- nobody's liberal -- withdrew the Yoo memos as being bad advice and utterly devoid of any legal basis.

But why let history and facts get in the way of sweeping abstractions?

---

You'd have to ask WC that rhetorical question I think :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

To be fair, Jack Goldsmith -- nobody's liberal -- withdrew the Yoo memos as being bad advice and utterly devoid of any legal basis.

But why let history and facts get in the way of sweeping abstractions?

---

Come on -- Jack Goldsmith is a traitor and a conservative in name only.

:)