Supreme Court Limits Warrantless Car Searches

[Wild Cobra]

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.

[Wild Cobra]

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.

[ChumpDumper]

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.

[Wild Cobra]

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.

[ChumpDumper]

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 cons utional scholarship relates to actual case law.

[ElNono]

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

[FromWayDowntown]

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?

[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.

[LnGrrrR]

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?

[LnGrrrR]

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 Cons utional professor was John Yoo?

[Winehole23]

To be fair, maybe his Cons utional 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?

[LnGrrrR]

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

[FromWayDowntown]

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.