Section 2 of article 2 has nothing to do with what we are discussing. We are off topic anyway. This thread is about searching people. Not protecting the nations security.
Do you mean Article III of the cons ution? Section 4 covers impeachment of crimes. That's a very liberal stretch to say exercising executive power is a crime.
This from someone who doesn't know the cons ution?
Article II, Section 1: President and Vice President
* 1.1 Clause 1: Executive power
* 1.2 Clause 2: Method of choosing electors
* 1.3 Clause 3: Electors
* 1.4 Clause 4: Election day
* 1.5 Clause 5: Qualifications for office
* 1.6 Clause 6: Vacancy and Disability
* 1.7 Clause 7: Salary
* 1.8 Clause 8: Oath or Affirmation
Article II, Section 2: Presidential Powers
* 2.1 Clause 1: Command of military; Opinions of cabinet secretaries; Pardons
* 2.2 Clause 2: Advice and Consent Clause
o 2.2.1 Treaties
o 2.2.2 Appointments
* 2.3 Clause 3: Recess appointments
Article II, Section 3: Presidential responsibilities
* 3.1 Clause 1: State of the Union
* 3.2 Clause 2: Calling Congress into extraordinary session; adjourning them
* 3.3 Clause 3: Receiving foreign representatives
* 3.4 Clause 4: Caring for the faithful execution of the law
* 3.5 Clause 5: Officers' Commission
Article II, Section 4: Impeachment
Taxes are too high as is. Obama needs to start lowering them. I know my family would spend more if we had more to spend. Thats a whole other subject.....
Search away piggys. I got no problem with it at all. They start acting like s or keeping me there longer than 5 minutes or want to take my tires off then I will have a problem. A few minute car pat down,,,have at it!
Yes, taxes are too high. After my deductions for taxes, retirement savings, medical insurance, etc. I get less than half my pay. Granted, I put the maximum 15% of my pay to retirement, but I pay ridiculously high taxes, and get almost nothing back after filing my return. In fact, I still had to pay taxes to Oregon.
Those of you who are leaching living off my tax dollars... Better yourself for a better job!
LOL, why quitting so early?
We are discussing presidential powers...
No, I meant what I wrote. Article II Section 4. If, as you postulate, the President is above the law, he would be completely immune to impeachment, considering he couldn't possibly commit a 'high crime or misdemeanor'. Why have Section 4 at all? Why bother writing Article III at all?
I wrote my opinion with an open copy of Article II in front of me. It would do you real good if you read past the headings...
No, we are discussing Executive Powers. The president wears many hats. He is:
President
Commander in Chief
Chief Executor of Law.
I'm simply tired of lawyers ting on the cons ution, twisting the plain simple meanings. We have been over these arguments before in other threads. The points are so simple. Why don't people understand them?
Study at the University of Indoctrination by chance?
Things that apply to the president as a person would fall under that. Not items that he is performing as a our president, in a faithful manner.
Law cannot supersede the cons ution! Period!
Do you realize the ramifications of that statement?
What if, congress passed a law that the president has to sign into law everything it passed? Now, what happens when a law comes to the presidents desk that he wants to veto?
Now before you say the president can veto the law, requiring him to sign others into law, he can veto that one, and congress can pass it with a super majority.
If the president did not have the understood "Executor of Law" as part of his duties, this could happen, making the president a puppet of congress.
phew..... thanks for the links so that I didn't have to look up Ring of Gyges on my own.
solid post
There's no such le as "Chief Executor of Law".
Please stop ting on the cons ution.
Because none of the points you make exist on the US Cons ution as written today. You don't need to be a lawyer to twist words.
So if a president commits murder and claims to have done it while performing his duties as president, he's not liable?
I need a quote from the US Cons ution where it claims such a thing.
No, because the President could challenge the legality of the law written by Congress, through the judicial branch.
Are you sure you're aware how checks and balances work?
Wtf are you talking about with this "law cannot supersede the Cons ution"... are you aware that the JUDICIAL BRANCH determines what is Cons utionally valid?
Tell me WC, how could any court possibly differentiate between what a person did as a "president" as opposed to a "regular" person?
Do you realize the absurdity of what you just posted?
If Congress hates the executive so much as to attempt to pass a law like you mention, and have super majority to do so, then they don't need to pass that law at all. They already have a supermajority to pass ANY law they want, and your 'Chief Executor of Law' is already a lame duck.
And that case is not only possible, it's legal and Cons utional.
Plus the president appoints judges, so he has more sway as far as challenging the law in court.
The reason Congress has inherently a little more power than the other two branches is pretty obvious.
Two link that are a MUST READ for you, Wild Cobra:
http://www.uscons ution.net/consttop_sepp.html
http://www.uscons ution.net/consttop_cnb.html
Such a law would be facially uncons utional. I can see the point that the President need not comply with uncons utional legislation -- though I think it's not for the President to decide what is or is not uncons utional.
What we're talking about is the basics of Cons utional law. The 4th Amendment prohibits warrantless searches or seizures that are unreasonable. Whether you like it or not, the Cons utionally-created Supreme Court of the United States has expressly identified a handful of situations in which a warrantless search may be reasonable under the agreed-upon constructions of the 4th Amendment. (In fact, this thread deals mostly with the redefinition of what is reasoanble in one of those situations.) Reasonableness for cons utional purposes is determined not by what any particular agent of the government might believe, but by those limited situations identified by the Supreme Court. If you're not in one of those limited situations, a search or seizure is unreasonable. Period.
Congress has passed a law -- one that has not been determined to have been uncons utional -- that requires warrants (albeit mostly secret ones) to support certain wiretapping activities. The law allows some exceptions to permit quick action where national security is threatened, but at bottom, that still-valid law requires a warrant. Practically, the processes are close to being a rubber-stamp matter. But not matter how perfunctory the review of the application, the law still requires a warrant because the commonly-held understanding of the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant in this cir stance. Obviously, the law must apply to the Executive Branch -- and to the President specifically; frankly, I'm not sure what other branch of government would ever undertake wiretaps.
It seems to me absurd to say that: (1) here's a situation in which the Supreme Court has found no exception to the 4th Amendment's warrant requirement; (2) in which Congress has expressly passed a law that requires a warrant while providing a pass-through procedure for obtaining one and doing so in secret; (3) in which the law can only apply to those acting under Article II; but (4) those acting under that power can simply disregard the law -- and wholly ignore the actions of the coordinate branches -- if they can concoct for themselves some trite theory of "reasonableness" to advance in support of their actions.
My basic philosophical quarrel with your position is this: what you're proposing is that the President can decide for himself that another particular situation is one in which a warrantless search is reasonable. But I'm curious where, for you, that would end. If the President decided that he didn't like the way certain members of the media were covering a foreign policy initiative -- in fact, that the coverage was undermining national security somehow -- could he (or she) decide that to undertake a warrantless wiretap of those individuals and permissibly argue that he had decided such wiretaps were "reasonable?" Are you really interested in giving the President (and remember -- any President) that much power to decide whether and when the personal lives of individuals can be invaded on a whim of reasonableness?
You just asked a question you dont want an answer to.
I actually do. It will be fascinating to read if it's ever offered.
Did you really say that?
Can a person on the street order a military strike?
One example given.
Right... and power over the military is EXPRESSLY described in the Cons ution.
Tell me, given your theory on the subject, if the President shot someone and then produced evidence after the fact that he was a terrorist trying to bomb a building, would that be acceptable?
Or better yet, if the President shot and killed someone and then argued after the fact that he believed the person shot was a terrorist trying to bomb a building, could homicide charges be validly asserted?
OK, but your argument made it sound like the president could not do any actions that a citizen could.
Think about that.
It was not meant as such. The President falls under the same laws that citizens do. As President, he also has limited power as Commander in Chief, the power to veto, and a few other functions.
You still haven't dealt with the fact that a warrantless search is cons utionally unreasonable unless it meets one of the handful of exceptions detailed by the Supreme Court.
I think it's great and would expect it in lines with the Cons ution
Oh, and freely admit to being a conservative (though, mainly in the fiscal sense, states rights, etc.).
Typical WC move. You misunderstood what LnGrrR said, restated that misunderstanding as an evident absurdity, then tried to hold LnGrrR responsible for the absurdity -- when in fact YOU manufactured it.
Now that LnGrrR's intent is completely clear, you point again to your misstatement of his views, as if that was what he said in the first place.
I dunno, it was pretty clear to me he was talking about one person in two roles: President qua President, and President qua private citizen.
IMO you botched your task of reading. LnGrrR's post-- as originally posted --was clear. The only thing unclear about it was your very improbable misreading.
Last edited by Winehole23; 04-28-2009 at 08:02 PM.
You need to read up on what was known as common law at the time. Not all is spelled out in the cons ution, but understood as a function of the office.
WTF...
Are you crazy? It's as simple as reasonable or unreasonable, and a gray area. Are you saying it isn't reasonable to wire tap the contacts of known terrorists.
Just how ing anti-American can you get?
A warrant is an order to take action. Not permission. Please keep what you are speaking of. Keep up the ignorance, and I will stop responding to you.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
