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

To: inquest

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.

383 posted on 01/25/2006 10:07:50 PM PST by Boot Hill ("...and Joshua went unto him and said: art thou for us, or for our adversaries?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies ]


To: Boot Hill
No, it means your contention informs no part of any debate over whether the President acted constitutionally in ordering warrantless foreign intelligence intercepts.

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.

384 posted on 01/25/2006 10:43:06 PM PST by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | 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