Replies

OK, one last thing and I'm checking out for the night.

Drum roll please FISA 02!!

I know you have been begging for it. I often see posted this...

"we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

Which is an example of bad quoting because it fails to follow through with the next two sentences.

"The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable."

Meaning, that it is possible that the governments searches CAN be unconstitutional. If they are unconstitutional then they are illegal regardless of what any other law says.

FISA acts as a protection to the President from exactly what we are seeing now. By ditching FISA Bush has removed the best defense he had regarding the legality of the tapping.

So we are right back to where we started, the question is does the President have the power to violate the rights granted by the fourth amendment?

"So we are right back to where we started, the question is does the President have the power to violate the rights granted by the fourth amendment?"

You are right,"question" of Presidential rights so that is why I take offense of anyone who's only reaction is the President "broke the law". Those who makes this bold statement should ask themselves 6 questions before making that assertion, 1) Are all the facts displayed for all to see? 2) Is there a presumption of innocent until proved guilty? 3) Does Individual Civil Liberties conflict with Presidential Constitutional Obligations or vice-versa and if so, who prevails? 4) Did the FISA court overstep their bounds and attempt to prevent the President from executing his Constitutional Obligations? 5) Did congress "accidentally" authorize the President to take all necessary steps to stop further attacks or did they actually mean what they wrote? 6) Who gets to define "reasonable"?

These are not questions that could possibly be answered on any message board because of the number 1 question that I posed on top. Just because the NY Slimes makes a claim of knowledge of the complete program doesn't make it so.

Also, to assert that the President "broke the law" is an endorsement for the person(s) who gave any information to the Slimes because they would then fall under the Whistle-Blowers status. I'm not willing to call the traitor(s) a hero. If the Slimes want to convince people that the President broke the law then they should not fear disclosing the person(s) who gave them the information because everybody would be protected from this evil, lawbreaking President.