Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: peyton randolph

When people bring up the Contstitution, that's a red herring.

The entire wiretapping was unrestricted until 26 years ago, when Congress made a law and created FISA, as a knee jerk reaction to the wiretapping of the Nixon adminstration. Is anyone going to claim that prior to that, for some 200 years the Constitution was ignored?

This is an unintended consequence of that law, and if Congress had any backbone and some other appropriate body parts, they would change the law to make it easy to catch terrorists, instead of handcuffing our President and intelligence agencies, making it virtually impossible for them, to find out about imminent attacks, once the terrorists are already in place, in the US. How idiotic is that?!


20 posted on 12/27/2005 10:58:01 AM PST by Pragmatic_View
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: Pragmatic_View

Brilliant! They allowed everything before 9/11 and started stopping them after. Let's up more of these Fisa judges "quit in protest"


25 posted on 12/27/2005 11:00:11 AM PST by WatchYourself
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: Pragmatic_View
When people bring up the Contstitution, that's a red herring. The entire wiretapping was unrestricted until 26 years ago, when Congress made a law and created FISA

No, it is not. To the extent that Congressional legislation interferes with the executive branch's national defense powers under the Constitution, the legislation must give way to the Constitution.

It is not the President's responsibility to demand repeal of the statute. Congress has enacted unconstitutional restrictions on the President's power. They can voluntarily repeal it, try to enforce it in court, complain and do nothing (like now), or complain and prepare articles of impeachment. As noted on prior threads, every President, from Carter to the present, has engaged in similar activity under the President's constitutional authority to do so.

40 posted on 12/27/2005 11:05:13 AM PST by peyton randolph (<a href="http://clinton.senate.gov/">shrew</a>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: Pragmatic_View

"This is an unintended consequence of that law, and if Congress had any backbone and some other appropriate body parts, they would change the law to make it easy to catch terrorists, instead of handcuffing our President and intelligence agencies, making it virtually impossible for them, to find out about imminent attacks, once the terrorists are already in place, in the US. How idiotic is that?!"

The rat agenda INCLUDES handcuffing any attempts to fight terror. They will stop at nothing to let Al quada and other terror groups come after us. The rats should never again be allowed to govern.


71 posted on 12/27/2005 11:20:27 AM PST by goresalooza (Nurses Rock!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson