Warrantless Wiretapping Ruled Unconstitutional

Damocles said:
"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.
Click to expand...


Strong points ...
 
I seem to recall Dixie saying that there was no way this was unconstitutional on the other site...

kinda like his prediction about only 500 more dead Americans - not worth a bucket of warm spit.
 
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...
I believe that the presidency has "aquired," let us say, far too much power as it is. It needs to be taken down several pegs.

Much of the responsibility for this situation rests with Congress, of course, but that's water under the proverbial bridge.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
I believe that the presidency has "aquired," let us say, far too much power as it is. It needs to be taken down several pegs.

Much of the responsibility for this situation rests with Congress, of course, but that's water under the proverbial bridge.
Click to expand...

The responsibility for the Executive powers can not rest with Congress, that in itself, is un-Constitutional. The structure of our government is based on the concept of 'seperate but equal branches' and there is no way to absolve one of the three branches of its power and cede it to another, the Constitution doesn't allow that provision, nor can Congress legislate it or a court order it. A Constitutional Amendment could be passed to do this, and then ratified by the states, but it would open the debate over our very type of government, and would likely not pass.

The President's executive powers in national security matters, is well-established and supported by Constitutional scholars, as well as the courts and Congress. Throughout our history, presidents have utilized their executive authority to supercede legislative and judicial finding in order to protect the American people. Although it's a different situation and circumstance, the FDR internment of Japanese-Americans is a prime example of this authority in action, and unless we want to retroactively prosecute FDR for violating the Constitution, we can't retroactively prosecute Bush.
 
according to Dixie the constitution only applies if Bush allows it to.

Bush said the war on terror is unending.
He can suspend any part of the constitution while in war.

THUS we have no constitution.
 
Desh said:
according to Dixie the constitution only applies if Bush allows it to.

Bush said the war on terror is unending.
He can suspend any part of the constitution while in war.

THUS we have no constitution.
Click to expand...


Nahh, that's not what I said at all, but I fully understand why you need to lie to people about it. The president retains the authority to suspend individual rights based on a threat to national security, much the same way a law enforcement officer can suspend your individual right to posess a firearm, if he deems you have committed a crime with it or are a threat to do so. Now, you can take the officer's ability to do this away, and demand that bank robbers and criminals not be denied their Constitutional right to bear arms, but the question is, do you really want to do that?
 
Basically, what the judge ruled today, was that international terrorists who aren't even citizens of America, have the constitutional right to privacy and freedom of speech, to be able to make phone calls into this country and discuss anything they desire in private, without the government listening, and matters of national security, simply don't factor into it.
 
fyi, Congress has oversight responsibility over the Executive branch....(Ending with impeachment)

The Executive Branch has oversight responsibility over congress... (via the VETO...)

That is how it works...
 
Care4all said:
fyi, Congress has oversight responsibility over the Executive branch....(Ending with impeachment)

The Executive Branch has oversight responsibility over congress... (via the VETO...)

That is how it works...
Click to expand...

And there was oversight with the NSA program as well, no one is arguing "oversight." We are discussing Executive Powers, and the president certainly does have some, and it certainly does supersede legislative and judicial powers in certain instances. It's rare, it's not typical, but it is allowed under the Constitution, and it has been supported in the past by the courts as well as Congress.

The executive branch will appeal this, and it will eventually be overturned, perhaps by the Supreme Court, so this issue is far from 'settled'.
 
Dixie said:
And there was oversight with the NSA program as well, no one is arguing "oversight." We are discussing Executive Powers, and the president certainly does have some, and it certainly does supersede legislative and judicial powers in certain instances. It's rare, it's not typical, but it is allowed under the Constitution, and it has been supported in the past by the courts as well as Congress.

The executive branch will appeal this, and it will eventually be overturned, perhaps by the Supreme Court, so this issue is far from 'settled'.
Click to expand...

No one has said Bush can't wiretap. We WANT him too.

The court has ruled he can't wiretap in the United States, without FISA oversight.
 
Dixie said:
And there was oversight with the NSA program as well, no one is arguing "oversight." We are discussing Executive Powers, and the president certainly does have some, and it certainly does supersede legislative and judicial powers in certain instances. It's rare, it's not typical, but it is allowed under the Constitution, and it has been supported in the past by the courts as well as Congress.

The executive branch will appeal this, and it will eventually be overturned, perhaps by the Supreme Court, so this issue is far from 'settled'.
Click to expand...

It NEVER supercedes judicial branch...they are the ones that determine if the president's executive order or supposed executive power is constitutional...

I believe it was Truman that tried to take over the Steal mills when they went on strike during a war and the supreme court ruled it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL for him to do that....

The Supreme court has the "oversite" power on the executive branch as well as the legislative too...and the congress has oversite over the supreme court...they can impeach a supreme court justice....
 
Care4all said:
It NEVER supercedes judicial branch...they are the ones that determine if the president's executive order or supposed executive power is constitutional...

I believe it was Truman that tried to take over the Steal mills when they went on strike during a war and the supreme court ruled it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL for him to do that....

The Supreme court has the "oversite" power on the executive branch as well as the legislative too...and the congress has oversite over the supreme court...they can impeach a supreme court justice....
Click to expand...

You are talking about something besides "oversight." The Supremes can rule on Constitutionality, but this is only because the legislative and executive branches allow it, for functional purposes. Each branch has delegated responsibility and authority, and neither of them can supersede what the others do, with regard to their enumerated powers. Granted, a court or legislature can determine case by case, what is or isn't a viable and legitimate enumerated power.
 
i can see both sides of this issue ... I understand Dixies argument when he says ... "Decisions that must be made in a matter of seconds or minutes" in the manner of National Security. I guess it depends on how one looks at this War .. if you believe it is a War. I think we all need to step back and ask of ourselves; Are you willing to give up some rights in order to preserve National Security .. if you truly believe we are in a War ..the answer should be yes ... if you dont think we are in a War .. the answer is going to be a resounding no.
Now Bush obviously thinks thinks he is a War time President which would give more powers to act hastily than a Peace Time President ... and he acted on it ...
The question remains ... is he a War time President?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top