You guys ROCK !
AND A BUMP TO THE TOP
So---where does it say that the AG is investigating the leaking creeps? (I'm being nice it's CHRISTMAS)!!
BTTT
ping, case law cited for Bush's 'spying'
Authorization During Time Of WarThe House amendments contained a provision which would allow the President to authorize electronic surveillance for periods up to a year during time of war declared by Congress. The Senate bill had no comparable provision.
The conference substitute retains the House language but adds the further requirement that the Attorney General inform the intelligence committees of the facts and circumstances giving rise to the need for such authority, the scope of such authority, and the standards to be employed in exercising such authority.
The conference substitute adopts a compromise provision authorizing the President, through the Attorney General, to authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this title to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed 15 calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.
The conferees intend that this period will allow time for consideration of any amendment to this act that may be appropriate during a wartime emergency. The conferees also intend that all other provisions of this act not pertaining to the court order requirement shall remain in effect during this period. The conferees expect that such amendment would be reported with recommendations within 7 days and that each house would vote on the amendment within 7 days thereafter.
Exclusive Means For Electronic Surveillance
The Senate bill provided that the procedures in this bill and in chapter 119 of title 18, United States Code, shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in this bill, and the interception of domestic wire and oral communications may be conducted.
The House amendments provided that the procedures in this bill and in chapter 119 of Title 18, U.S.C. shall be the exclusive statutory means by which electronic surveillance as defined in this bill and the interception of domestic wire and oral communications may be conducted.
The conference substitute adopts the Senate provision which omits the word 'statutory.' The conferees agree that the establishment by this act of exclusive means by which the president may conduct electronic surveillance does not foreclose a different decision by the Supreme Court. The intent of the conferees is to apply the standard set forth in Justice Jackson's concurring opinion in the steel seizure case: 'When a president takes measures incompatible with the express or implied will of congress, his power is at the lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional power minus any Constitutional power of Congress over the matter.' Youngstown Sheet And Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 u.s. 579, 637 (1952)
And on the note, dimoRATS, shut up!
marker
Bump
Is there a lawyer in the house that can give us a summary on all this?
Now, will someone ping me when that geek lawyer, Jonathan Turkey, shows up on a talk show to explain his recent statements that the President has no such authority and has/is breaking the law?
Even though he's never met a camera he doesn't like, Professor Turkey just may be in hiding from the axe poised over his neck after he stuck his pencil-neck out on the chopping block.
To think that he's teaching law to our university students is despicable. To think that he's called an "expert" when introduced on a TV show is incomprehensible. To think that any president has no special powers during a war is just plain stupidity.
Leni
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1545927/posts
Cases cited there are ...
Olmstead v. United States, 217 U.S. 438 (1928)
U.S. v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3d Cir. 1974) (en banc), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 881 (1974)
Ivanov v. United States (5th Cir., 1974) no citation found
Chagnon v. Bell, 642 F.2d. 1248, 1266 (DC Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 453 US 911 (1981)
Not cited in the FR link above, but a short and interesting read, especially Stewart's concurrance ...
Giordano v. United States, 394 U.S. 310 (1969)
One might suppose that all of this should be entirely clear to any careful reader of the Court's opinion in Alderman, Butenko, and Ivanov. Perhaps so, and perhaps, therefore, what I have said is quite unnecessary. But 10 years of experience here have taught me that the most carefully written opinions are not always carefully read - even by those most directly concerned.
One more ...
God help us, this is WAY too many paragraphs (too difficult to get), and citing "ancient" US law (meaning: no longer applicable) for the general Congressmember or Joe American citizen.
What is it about Americans and laws more than 50 years old?
I hope many see long jail sentences over this.
Now, of course, when their god 'clinton' did this, that was fine, great, had to do it.....but because President Bush is trying to keep all of us safe, and is walking in line with the Constitution of the United States, why that is just terrible, how could he do such a thing, etc, etc....just like a stupid 'rat'....
Thanks for this post.
One of them is obviously the leak.
Marking for later reference. Good stuff.