Reply With Quote
I'm thinking there will never be a judge out there that will convict Bush of illegal wiretapping.
That "secret" federals appeals court *IS* FISA. And warrantless wiretaps were already allowed, but only THROUGH FISA. What that company challenged was FISA's authority. The NSA wiretaps, on the other hand, were done outside of FISA, thus completely illegal.
I'm thinking there will never be a judge out there that will convict Bush of illegal wiretapping.
That doesn't make it any more legal, now, does it?
Plus I don't think anybody is looking to convict the ex-president. The idea here is that telecoms were fully aware that the wiretaps were illegal, but still went with them.
Thus they should be liable. Unfortunately, with Congress passing retroactive immunity, that's another avenue that was closed to obtain relief from the abuse.
In other words, another case of abuse of power that goes unpunished. But the worst part is the partisan cronies like WC that had sudden memory loss on the abuses of the previous administration (And BTW, I'm not absolving the Dems from this either. Obama happily voted for the immunity bill)
Last edited by ElNono; 04-27-2009 at 05:51 PM.
if nobody is prosceuted, convicted, or even held liable then that really doesn't mean it was illegal either now, does it?
It doesn't work like that. The telecoms did get sued, and there was enough evidence to go ahead with a trial. The retroactive immunity simply prevented the cases to move forward.
That actually is still being challenged.
There's no question that the NSA wiretaps happened, and that they were done outside of FISA. Heck, even the president at the time confirmed it.
Wtf are you smoking? So is the President the only public citizen above the law? Do some senior tenured Senators get the same privilege?
Can the President just haul off and go kill someone on the street for pissing him off? I mean, it's not directly mentioned in the Cons ution that the President can't kill someone, right? Therefore it's ok?
So what's the big deal about a small raise in taxes? I mean, it's just going to be a few extra dollars per year, right?
it's obviously explicitly uncons utional to raise taxes slightly.
no. As a citizen, he must obey the laws.
As president, the cons ution cannot be overruled by law in the performance of his duties.
Why are you being absurd?
That would be fine but after 36 percent you have to start drawing the line...right? In fact I think after everything is said and I done I pay about 45-50 percent in taxes.
Anybody else thinks this sentence makes no sense whatsoever?
I mean, I think I know what he's trying to say, however wrong he is.
One of the president's cons utional mandates is to obey the law. If he deems a law is uncons utional, he can challenge it in court, or present an alternative law to Congress that overrides the previous one. Under NO cir stances the president can break the law.
Me being absurd?
WTF does the sentence "As President, the cons ution cannot be overruled by law in the performance of his duties." mean? Tell me, what do you think the Cons ution allows the President to do? I'm pretty sure it says that he must "take care that the LAWS must be faithfully executed", not "must protect the country at all costs, even if it means breaking the law."
What do YOU think are his "Cons utional" duties?
And some people draw the line at searches with no probable cause. See my point yet?
then how does it work? ElNono on a spurs message board says it is illegal, therefore it is?
Bush will always throw out that he was acting under article II war powers and there won't be any court out there that will find him guilty.
No, you let the justice branch of the government investigate and find out what happened. You don't just throw a blanket immunity and tie it's hands.
If that's the case, then why not let a court go ahead and do it? Let's have the Supreme Court hear the case for executive powers as Cheney believe they worked, and the legality of the NSA wiretaps... I mean, that's transparency right there, right? If they were right all along, they don't need any immunity... What were they afraid of? Some 'activist judge' in the Supreme Court? GAFB
Some people thinks its ok to kids. There is a line. 18 in most states. So no I donot see ur point.
None has so far.
Bush will always throw out that he was acting under article II war powers and there won't be any court out there that will find him guilty.
Your discussion with El Nono in this thread is a great demo of the de facto/de jure distinction IMO.
As a matter of law (de jure), no one is above the law and all are equal before it. US Presidents swear to defend, uphold and execute it faithfully. You might say this is the formulaic view. It is a commonplace so long as the law is.
I tend to agree with your gloss on the significance of extra-cons utional activities *in reality*. Bush flauted the US Cons ution and his oath to take care to execute the laws faithfully when he surveilled Americans surrep iously and without particularized cause.
The fact that the authority to which GWB appeals has not so far been challenged successfully; and further that the other participants in (de jure) crime have been immunized by the US Congress; and yet further that if his successor has not upheld the same privileges, he has not exactly disavowed them either -- all tend to the result that GWB's *feloniously*acquired surveillance privileges will become the custom and attach normally to the office.
In other words, (de jure) *crime* sometimes becomes de facto legal precedent, instead of perps being prosecuted, amerced and jailed.
Finally, I should say one thing about El Nono's side of it. In the de facto case outlined, we are allowing the legal equivalent of a Star Chamber. Regal ing discretion. It means the end of rule of law, or at least of equality before it, which is something very similar.
Why so-called conservatives on this board want this power reposed in Barack Obama is beyond me. Maybe Americans think of the President as being a sort of king now. That he deserves the discretion somehow. None seem to care that, God forbid, someday we should elect a venal or conniving man to serve.
(The callow bona fides that has accompanied the novel powers and secrecy claimed by the executive branch, does not accord with the conservative view of human nature, but more chimes with the liberal one IMO. We have a government of men and not angels, but now we have given it the Ring of Gyges.)
As our connection with republican form attenuates, so does the authority of law. The adoration of raw power usurps civil pieties and also the society those pieties once protected, and the whole world once admired.
Last edited by Winehole23; 04-28-2009 at 12:32 AM.
That's exactly my point. Not only the state allows the law to be broken, it protects those that committed the crime.
So where does it end? If you break the law and abuse the system and don't get punished for it, then what's the incentive to stop doing it?
Do we really as citizens have to get used to the idea that select peers are above the law? Even if it happens in our current world, I refuse to condone it, and I think it's something that should be criticized.
When the law is in conflict with the presidents mandate to protect this nation, he sure the can. Does the phrase "executor of law" mean anything to you?
Article II; Section 1:
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.Section 3:"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Cons ution of the United States."
It does not say he will take care to follow the law, but that he faithfully executes the law. He is the executor of law. He has the power of decision over many laws, and the application of those that affect his presidential powers. You have to apply the known usages of words like ‘faithfully’ from the 18th century meaning, and apply it to the presidents mandatehe shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,
I don't see anywhere that it states in a precise manner, as the the black and white of the text. Can you say he has not made these controversial decisions in a manner that was sincere and honest? Loyal to the needs of defending the cons ution? Do you know his heart? I don't apply trust, because so many people will never trust him. That's you guy's problem.Faithfully:
In a faithful manner; loyally; sincerely; honestly; trustfully.
You guys are completely twisting my point of executor of law, and the granted powers. A star chamber situation would never be cons utional. Funny how many of the same people not understanding the president as the executor of laws are the same ones wanting to promote illegal immigrations.
LOL at twisting words... The Cons ution is very clear on what powers the president has. Section 2, that you bravely omitted from your revisionist Cons utional review.
Furthermore, if he's above the law, and/or dictates how to apply the laws, then there should be no need for Section 4, or a Judicial branch at all.
Your entire post is such a fallacy. I don't even know who you're trying to convince other than yourself.
The line YOU draw is arbitrary. So is the line I draw. Therefore, the line is determined by society at large, and all of these opinions go into what is written up as law.
Our LAW says that we should be free from unreasonable search and seizure, or search without probable cause. Just because YOU are willing to let them search your car does not mean that WE should be willing to. Just because I am willing to pay higher taxes does not mean that YOU should be willing to.
The LAW applies to everyone WC. Executing the law means executing it FOR EVERYONE. Not, "execute the law but you don't have to worry about it yourself."
Also, how ed up is it that WC thinks that, unless the Cons ution specifically said, "The President has to follow the law", that he doesn't? I mean, honestly, isn't that laughable?
It's actually pretty sad if you ask me...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
