Posted on 01/18/2006 8:10:29 AM PST by Perlstein
Leading Conservatives Call for Extensive Hearings on NSA Surveillance; Checks on Invasive Federal Powers Essential
1/17/2006 6:36:00 PM
To: National Desk
Contact: Laura Brinker, 202-715-1540, for Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances, laura.brinker@dittus.com
WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances (PRCB) today called upon Congress to hold open, substantive oversight hearings examining the President's authorization of the National Security Agency (NSA) to violate domestic surveillance requirements outlined in the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, chairman of PRCB, was joined by fellow conservatives Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR); David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation and Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, in urging lawmakers to use NSA hearings to establish a solid foundation for restoring much needed constitutional checks and balances to intelligence law.
"When the Patriot Act was passed shortly after 9-11, the federal government was granted expanded access to Americans' private information," said Barr. "However, federal law still clearly states that intelligence agents must have a court order to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans on these shores. Yet the federal government overstepped the protections of the Constitution and the plain language of FISA to eavesdrop on Americans' private communication without any judicial checks and without proof that they are involved in terrorism."
The following can be attributed to PRCB members:
"I believe that our executive branch cannot continue to operate without the checks of the other branches. However, I stand behind the President in encouraging Congress to operate cautiously during the hearings so that sensitive government intelligence is not given to our enemies." -- Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO, Free Congress Foundation
"Public hearings on this issue are essential to addressing the serious concerns raised by alarming revelations of NSA electronic eavesdropping." -- Grover Norquist, president, Americans for Tax Reform
"The need to reform surveillance laws and practices adopted since 9/11 is more apparent now than ever. No one would deny the government the power it needs to protect us all, but when that power poses a threat to the basic rights that make our nation unique, its exercise must be carefully monitored by Congress and the courts. This is not a partisan issue; it is an issue of safeguarding the fundamental freedoms of all Americans so that future administrations do not interpret our laws in ways that pose constitutional concerns." -- David Keene, chairman, American Conservative Union
"If the law is not reformed, ordinary Americans' personal information could be swept into all-encompassing federal databases encroaching upon every aspect of their private lives. This is of particular concern to gun owners, whose rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment are currently being infringed upon under the Patriot Act's controversial record search provisions." -- Alan Gottlieb, founder, Second Amendment Foundation
Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances is an organization dedicated to protecting Americans' fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment and ensuring that all provisions of the Patriot Act are in line with the Constitution. For more information, visit the Web site at http://www.checksbalances.org.
http://www.usnewswire.com/
-0-
/© 2006 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
Which of course is a non sequitur, since nobody has claimed that the court made such a holding, and since your contention informs no part of a debate over whether the President acted constitutionally in ordering warrantless foreign intelligence intercepts.
Ah, that would be the following case cite. But even as dicta, the court's observation stands as the soundest and most authoritative legal argument yet advanced in this debate and it follows naturally from the court's holding in Marbury, that "a law repugnant to the Constitution is void".
"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 of course is a non sequitur, since nobody has claimed that the court made such a holding
So his authority is equally sacred in all areas? That means Congress does not have power to regulate how he enforces the laws domestically?
it follows naturally from the court's holding in Marbury, that "a law repugnant to the Constitution is void".
Not until you establish that it is repugnant to the Constitution it doesn't. And thus far, no court has ever held that any part of FISA is repugnant to the Constitution, or that any law which regulates the exercise of the President's authority (apart from those undermining his authority over his subordinates) is likewise repugnant on the grounds that it violates the "separation-of-powers doctrine".
No, it means your contention informs no part of any debate over whether the President acted constitutionally in ordering warrantless foreign intelligence intercepts.
I don't need to establish anything beyond citing the In re: Sealed Case court's observation that "FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power", and noting that the court's observation stands as the soundest and most authoritative legal argument yet advanced regarding FISA's impact on the President's actions.
Of course it forms the crux of the debate. Congress has regulated the exercise of the President's powers of domestic law enforcement, and these regulations have not been condemned as uncosntitutional. Since they're constitutional, the only way that your contention could be correct is if there's a two-tiered system of the President's powers. Since you've condemned the whole notion of such a two-tiered system, it follows that your contention about Congress's powers over the President is incorrect, by your own standards.
You've tried that lie once before, it didn't work then, and it won't work now.
The topic under discussion is the legality of the President authorizing warrantless foreign intelligence intercepts. Do you have anything constructive to add?
You've tried that lie once before
Only in your dreams is it a lie. At the bottom of #327, you said, "I've only argued that all constitutional grants of power be equally respected". That was in direct response to an accusation of supporting the notion of a two-tiered system.
Get your story straight before trying to continue with this.
The topic under discussion is the legality of the President authorizing warrantless foreign intelligence intercepts. I'm loosing patience with your lies and attempts at digression, either find something constructive to offer to the debate, or go away.
That's about as much of a lie as been told by anyone on this thread. Quoting your own previous lies to support it doesn't make it any more true.
The topic under discussion is the legality of the President authorizing warrantless foreign intelligence intercepts.
Look, if you don't want to own up to your own contradictory statements that I've pointed out, that's your choice, but you'd have to realize that it's impossible to continue a rational debate as long as you insist on maintaining mutually contradictory positions as if they're both true.
I already summed up where you went wrong on the issue of legality here, and you've had nothing truthful to say in response to it.
The topic under discussion is the legality of the President authorizing warrantless foreign intelligence intercepts. I'm loosing patience with your lies and attempts at digression, either find something constructive to offer to the debate, or go away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.