Reply With Quote
Are you saying FISA is uncons utional?
Just answer me this simple question. How can the Commander in Chief, or Executor of law in this country, faithfully execute his role if congress can tie his hand in law that superseded his cons utional duties?
Are you saying FISA is uncons utional?
Such a law would be uncons utional, as has been stated numerous times by various posters here. Do you actually read the posts?. And the president, just like any other person, can challenge it in a court of law, including the request of a stay so the law cannot be applied until it's reviewed by the judiciary.
What a president cannot do is arbitrarily break ANY laws because he doesn't agree with them. If he does, then the remedies on Article II, Section 4 need to be applied.
Do you understand how our system of government works now?
And BTW, common law might have been used as judicial precedent on certain cases, but the ultimate law of the land is the Cons ution. None of the public servants take an oath to uphold the common laws. They take an oath to uphold the US Cons ution.
Unlike you, I feel some compunction to adhere to accepted understandings of the cons utional term "reasonable." You believe that term can be defined unilaterally by the President. I'm sure that term has been construed by the Supreme Court in a manner that made FISA necessary in the first place.
Choosing to ignore well-settled precedent doesn't exactly make a legal argument sound.
I know a good deal about common law. Tell me WC, what court precedent declares the President above the law, except as enumerated specifically in the Cons ution?
Can't Congress already tie his hand with by getting enough votes to counter his veto? So I'm not seeing your point.
The Cons ution is DESIGNED TO TIE UP THE PRESIDENT.
The Founders DELIBERATELY CREATED A SYSTEM IN WHICH THE PRESIDENT HAD LIMITED DUTIES, AND COULD BE COUNTERED IN MANY WAYS.
His Constiutional duties truly are limited. The role of President has gained great power and esteem, but that's through usage and precedent, not through the Cons ution. Apart from being a Commander in Chief, the President does not have alot of authority opposed to executives in many other systems of government.
No, I would say it applies to agencies acting on their own. When directed by the president, they don't apply in aspects that limit his ability to protect this nation in a faithful manner, when acting in that capacity.
It isn't arbitrary. Law simply cannot supersede cons ution. Why do you refuse the adress that?
Yes. I also understand lawyers have twisted it, like the successful challenge against part of the McCain/Feingold law.
If president Bush has done wrong, then why isn't it in court? Because everyone in the field knows he was right, that law does not supersede cons ution.
I'm getting tired of all this. My point is that law does not supersede the cons ution. Nobody is addressing that. You all skirt around it with arguments that pale in comparison to that fact!
Tell me. How can law supersede the cons ution?
You assume that FISA is uncons utional -- at least in part. My point, all along, is that FISA complies with well-established precedent construing the term "reasonable" as it is used in the Fourth Amendment. Thus, FISA does not in any way supersede the Cons ution or, more specifically, the Fourth Amendment.
I get that you believe that 18th Century usages should carry the day in applying the Cons ution, but the law of the land is NOT an 18th Century dictionary. It's 230+ years of decisional law by the Supreme Court of the United States. And that law says that absent very specific cir stances -- none of which exist for the sort of wiretapping we're dealing with here -- the executive (regardless of the capacity in which that branch operates) must comply with the warrant requirement.
Again, I'd be really, really interested to read any source material that you can find to suggest that determinations of what is "reasonable" for Fourth Amendment purposes is left solely to the discretion of the President -- ever.
WayDowntown; If tested in court, we cannot change the meaning or construe the word reasonable/unreasonable. It is clearly reasonable that law cannot supersede the powers given in the cons ution. It is our highest law. It is clearly reasonable to follow the communications of known terrorists, who are reasonable suspected of having information necessary to protect this nation.
Funny thing is, we have had similar laws for drug enforcement for years. One primary addition in the Patriot Act was to include following newer methods of communications like the internet, cell phones, satellite phones, etc. Otherwise it is very much the same as prior drug enforcement practices.
Where was the complaints then? is it because that happened before president Bush 43?
Back to my question that I will remain stuck on.
How can law supersede the cons ution in a manner that prevents the president from acting in a faithful manner?
Where are you getting this idea that a law is superceding the Cons ution? Has there been any law stating that the President can not be a Commander in Chief?
There are laws that do not SUPERCEDE the Cons ution, but that DO limit the President's abililty to accomplish things. That is Cons utional. The President must work WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF LAW when acting as President.
You are acting like "the law" and "the cons ution" are two separate things. The Cons ution is law. And laws that are NOT Cons utional can only be determined by the JUDICIARY BRANCH. That is their function. It is not the EXECUTIVE BRANCH's function to decide whether laws are Cons utional or not.
Do you know what standing is? That's one of the main arguments/reasons on why he hasn't been brought to court. The other is that there is a strong chance it would be politically disadvantageous (sp?). No one is saying this silly, "law over cons ution" theory you're spouting.
Are you saying that a Court cannot determine whether a particular warrantless search or seizure is reasonable? If not, are you saying that such a determination has no vitality beyond the case in which it has been made?
Clearly, our Courts HAVE been asked to determine whether a particular warrantless search is a reasonable one or not. And clearly, those Courts HAVE construed the Fourth Amendment to determine when a warrant is required and when one is not. Wiretapping -- even of suspected or known terrorists -- has not, to my knowledge, ever been determined to absolve the searching agency from the burden of obtaining a warrant.
In any event, if you're saying that it's beyond the purview of courts to determine what is or isn't reasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes, there's a very long history of law that you've unilaterally decided is entirely invalid. I can't imagine that any beyond your own lunatic fringe could agree with that position.
And what I'm telling you is that well-settled precedent construing the highest law says you gotta get a warrant to wiretap. Period. Again, unless you're in that extremely marginalized minority that believes that Supreme Court precedent construing the Cons ution is completely meaningless, that IS the highest law of the land.
Doesn't the President's faithful execution of the laws compel him to abide by precedent construing the Cons ution?
If, for instance, the Supreme Court declared the death penalty uncons utional under the 8th Amendment, could the President order the execution of citizens he believed to be traitors and simply argue that he believed there was nothing cruel or unusual about that punishment?
Keep misconstruing my point and I will stop debating you. If yoiu do not understand the differences I make, then you will never understand.
The courts can and do apply distictions in all levels under the president, and that is acceptable. Law applies here. I am specifically saying law cannot tie the hands of the president to do his job!
Duh...
I am not arguing otherwise. Only that law cannot tie the hands of the presidents responsibilities.
It isn't an all or nothing debate. Get over that.
Will you please stop with arguments outside of what I am saying? I agree lower law enforcements actions can and should be restrained. That was never my point. Bring that asinine argument up again, and I will stop debating you as unworthy.
Only the cons ution, and precedent that applies to his office. Not lower levels.
No. that does not apply under protecting this nation.
I never heard of the death penalty being repealed? I know a form or two of it has. Not the penalty of death itself. A,m I wrong?
Back to my question.
How can law tie the hands of the president from faithfully doing his job?
Sigh. Please let me know when you leave the echo chamber and again feel en bered by fact and reality.
Please let me know when you can answer that one question.
I've answered the question by pointing out: (1) that precedent says the Fourth Amendment trumps the Article II power when it comes to wiretapping; and (2) that the requirement of obtaining a secret warrant does nothing to impede the President's ability to faithfully execute the laws.
You choose to disregard #1 and pretend that #2 couldn't possibly be true.
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?
Excuse me? The government pays? Last time I checked we the taxpayers paid for those roads.
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?
What is your legal definition of "faithfully"?
Your reasoning is positively Nixonian.
Or hey, Congress could just decide not to fund the military. While not technically creating a law, wouldn't that also bind the President's cons utional authorities?
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
