Warrantless Wiretapping Ruled Unconstitutional

C

Cypress

"Cypress you motherfucking whore!"
NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional
Judge orders immediate halt to program

Thursday, August 17, 2006; Posted: 12:57 p.m. EDT (16:57 GMT)

(CNN) -- A federal judge on Thursday ruled that the U.S. government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately.

In a 44-page memorandum and order, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, -- who is based in Detroit, Michigan --struck down the National Security Agency's program, which she said violates the rights to free speech and privacy.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/17/domesticspying.lawsuit/index.html


Hat tip to FSB on fullpolitics for posting this first
 
the judge says Bush broke the fourth amendment !!!!!!!

This is earth shattering news and should be pushing the Jon Bennet story off the headlineS!!!

Will it?
 
Judge's Ruling:

"The president of the United States ... has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders."


Wow.

A presidential blowjob looks almost quaint now, doesn't it?
 
Desh said:
the judge says Bush broke the fourth amendment !!!!!!!

This is earth shattering news and should be pushing the Jon Bennet story off the headlineS!!!

Will it?
Click to expand...

Can you say IMPEACHMENT . He swore to uphold the constitution.
 
Last edited:
There is the matter of Executive Powers that you all seem to want to ignore here. The Constitution is clear on this, and it's been challenged numerous times throughout history. The President is obligated by the Constitution to fulfill his oath of office, and his power to do this in national security issues, always supersedes judicial or legislative orders, always has, and always must. If you take this authority from the elected president, you can give it to the legislative or judicial branch, or you can deny anyone this explicit power, either way, you cripple the government's ability to provide the one thing they are responsible foremost to provide, security for the citizenry. Decisions that must be made in a matter of seconds or minutes, would have to be presided over by judges or litigated by partisan politico's, and the opportunity to make effective decisions and take effective action, is lost.
 
I just finished emailing all my state and federal level representatives.
If the USA lets this slide , the rest of the constitution will sooner or later fall into the abyss.
 
Cypress said:
LOL

I agree with you.

Jon Benet Ramsey will take precendence over a presidential violation of the U.S. constitution.
Click to expand...
There is no punishment for following policies that are later deemed unconstitutional. If there was we would consistently change congress each time they passed a law that was unconstitutional. It is a bit ridiculous to state that a branch of the government went and did something unconstitutional so we should burn down that particular branch. It happens all the time....
 
Damocles said:
There is no punishment for following policies that are later deemed unconstitutional. If there was we would consistently change congress each time they passed a law that was unconstitutional. It is a bit ridiculous to state that a branch of the government went and did something unconstitutional so we should burn down that particular branch. It happens all the time....
Click to expand...
The question is whether they honestly thought it was not unconstitutional or were simply trying to get away with as much as they could. Frankly, I find the logic by which it was claimed to be constitutional pretty absurd. And impeaching a president does not equate with burning down the executive branch. Quite the opposite, if you think about it.

Bush is a lame duck already: I doubt that there will be any strong motion toward impeachent. The Dems will certainly use it as amunition in the next two elections, however.
 
Damocles said:
There is no punishment for following policies that are later deemed unconstitutional. If there was we would consistently change congress each time they passed a law that was unconstitutional. It is a bit ridiculous to state that a branch of the government went and did something unconstitutional so we should burn down that particular branch. It happens all the time....
Click to expand...

That's what I just wrote on the other board.

Ruling a law or program doesn't mean a "crime" was committed. Programs are rule unconstitutional all the time.

Other factors would have to be looked at: did Bush really believe he was acting constitutionally? Or is there evidence that they knowingly advanced weak and specious arguments supporting their program, in an effort to knowingly subvert the authority of congress and the courts? And what about the implementation of the plan? Were there any criminal abuses by the adminstration?
 
(CNN) -- A federal judge on Thursday ruled that the U.S. government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately.


The defendants "are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and Internet communications, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Title III," she wrote.

She further declared that the program "violates the separation of powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III."

She went on to say that "The president of the United States ... has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders."
 
OrnotBitwise said:
The question is whether they honestly thought it was not unconstitutional or were simply trying to get away with as much as they could. Frankly, I find the logic by which it was claimed to be constitutional pretty absurd. And impeaching a president does not equate with burning down the executive branch. Quite the opposite, if you think about it.

Bush is a lame duck already: I doubt that there will be any strong motion toward impeachent. The Dems will certainly use it as amunition in the next two elections, however.
Click to expand...
"burning down" was a metaphor. There is no provision for impeachment because of this ruling. Now, if he continued to do it regardless of the ruling then it would be impeachment territory. It was not ruled "unconstitutional" until it was ruled...

Yes, it is the "letter" rather than the spirit, but that is simply how it works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top