Posted on 01/25/2006 2:47:00 PM PST by Thanatos
Hillary Clinton is a well known political panderer. She will bend over and perform circus acts if she thinks it will either gain her money, give her greater power, or be in charge.
She gave another clueless speech today before the Presidents State of the Union Speech by saying the following:
"Their argument that it's rooted in the authority to go after al-Qaida is far-fetched," she said in an apparent reference to a congressional resolution passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack. The Bush administration has argued that resolution gave the president authority to order such electronic surveillance as part of efforts to protect the nation from terrorists."Their argument that it's rooted in the Constitution inherently is kind of strange because we have FISA and FISA operated very effectively and it wasn't that hard to get their permission," she said. The super-secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was established by Congress to approve eavesdropping warrants, even retroactively, but Bush has argued that the process often takes too long. "
Her Argument of "It's strange why they say the authority is rooted in the Constitution" is in itself strange, supposedly she is a "Constitutional Lawyer", if so, then she knows Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution which states:
"Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. "
This section of the US Constitution has been referenced in several Supreme Court Rulings that state that the Executive Branch, in particular the President of the United States, has Constitutional Powers to protect the United States in National Security matters, and that wiretapping NEEDS a search warrant in DOMESTIC CRIMINAL Matters, but the President of the United States DOES NOT need a Search Warrant in FOREIGN INTELLEGANCE or NATIONAL SECURITY Matters when dealing with Foreign entities.
Here is a section from the Supreme Court Library that explains the difference between "Criminal Activity" and "National Security Matters"....
"Warrantless ``National Security'' Electronic Surveillance.--In Katz v. United States,151 Justice White sought to preserve for a future case the possibility that in ``national security cases'' electronic surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible without prior judicial approval. The Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to ``bug'' in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of ``inherent'' presidential power and then in the Supreme Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a ``reasonable'' search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required. 152 Whether or not a search was reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause; except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The Government's duty to preserve the national security did not override the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy.153 This protection was even more needed in ``national security cases'' than in cases of ``ordinary'' crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth.154 Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required.155151. 389 U.S. 347, 363-64 (1967) (concurring opinion). Justices Douglas and Brennan rejected the suggestion. Id. at 359-60 (concurring opinion). When it enacted its 1968 electronic surveillance statute, Congress alluded to the problem in ambiguous fashion, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(3), which the Court subsequently interpreted as having expressed no congressional position at all. United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 302-08 (1972).
152. United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972). Chief Justice Burger concurred in the result and Justice White concurred on the ground that the 1968 law required a warrant in this case, and therefore did not reach the constitutional issue. Id. at 340. Justice Rehnquist did not participate. Justice Powell carefully noted that the case required ``no judgment on the scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country.'' Id. at 308.
153. The case contains a clear suggestion that the Court would approve a congressional provision for a different standard of probable cause in national security cases. ``We recognize that domestic security surveillance may involve different policy and practical considerations from the surveillance of `ordinary crime.' The gathering of security intelligence is often long range and involves the interrelation of various sources and types of information. The exact targets of such surveillance may be more difficult to identify than in surveillance operations against many types of crimes specified in Title III. Often, too, the emphasis of domestic intelligence gathering is on the prevention of unlawful activity or the enhancement of the Government's preparedness for some future crisis or emergency. . . . Different standards may be compatible with the Fourth Amendment if they are reasonable both in relation to the legitimate need of Government for intelligence information and the protected rights of our citizens. For the warrant application may vary according to the governmental interest to be enforced and the nature of citizen rights deserving protection. . . . It may be that Congress, for example, would judge that the application and affidavit showing probable cause need not follow the exact requirements of Sec. 2518 but should allege other circumstances more appropriate to domestic security cases. . . .'' Id. at 322-23.
154. Id. at 313-24.
155. Id. at 320. The question of the scope of the President's constitutional powers, if any, remains judicially unsettled.156 Congress has acted, however, providing for a special court to hear requests for warrants for electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence situations, and permitting the President to authorize warrantless surveillance to
acquire foreign intelligence information provided that the communications to be monitored are exclusively between or among foreign powers and there is no substantial likelihood any ``United States person'' will be overheard.157
156. See United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 881 (1974); Zweibon v. Mitchell, 516 F.2d 594 (D.C. Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944 (1976), appeal after remand 565 F.2d 742 (D.C. Cir. 1977), on remand, 444 F. Supp. 1296 (D.D.C. 1978), aff'd. in part, rev'd. in part, 606 F.2d 1172 (D.C. Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 912 (1981); Smith v. Nixon, 606 F.2d 1183 (D.C. Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 912 (1981); United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980), after remand, 667 F.2d 1105 (4th Cir. 1981); Halkin v. Helms, 690 F.2d 977 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
157. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-511, 92 Stat. 1797, 50 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1801-1811. See United States v. Belfield, 692 F.2d 141 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (upholding constitutionality of disclosure restrictions in Act)."
Hillary should know this as HER HUSBAND Impeached President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12949 dated February 9, 1995 that states the following:
"By the authority vested in my as President by the Constitution ad the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103-359, and in order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes as set forth in the Act...."
Bill Clinton goes on to allow the executive branch to AUTHORIZE Physical Searches WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT and to give the Attorney General the authorization to order such searches. All this for Foreign Intelligence Purposes.
Gee.. I guess her Husband was VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION AND FEDERAL LAW when he signed this Executive Order as were Presidents Carter, Ford, Reagan, GWHB, and GWB..
"Hillary confuses loving Husband with philandering playboy"
News at 11!
:0)
Like your site BTW......
Thanks for the research. Saving as a resource for a later debate - I work with a bunch of clintoon-loving libs. We USUALLY stay away from politically-motivated discussions, but I imagine an NSA "fight" is not too far away. It is hilarious (and sad) that they almost never argue with facts to support their positions.
That's OK, she also confuses "Campaign Fundraising" with "Domestic Criminal Activity".
"The fact that this awful women can be talked about running for President so sad for our country."
I wouldn't worry too much.
Even CNN/GALLUP's poll shows only 16 percent would vote for her and 51 percent said they definately wouldn't.
didn't the Constitutional Scholar's husband get his law license back today ???
| Part I Principles of Social Structure and Policy Chapter 1 Political System Article 1 The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a socialist state of the whole people, expressing the will and interests of the workers, peasants, and intelligentsia, the working people of all the nations and nationalities of the country. Article 2 (1) All power in the USSR belongs to the people. (2) The people exercise state power through Soviets of People's Deputies, which constitute the political foundation of the USSR. (3) All other state bodies are under the control of, and accountable to, the Soviets of People's Deputies. Article 3 The Soviet state is organized and functions on the principle of democratic centralism, namely the electiveness of all bodies of state authority from the lowest to the highest, their accountability to the people, and the obligation of lower bodies to observe the decisions of higher ones. Democratic centralism combines central leadership with local initiative and creative activity and with the responsibility of the each state body and official for the work entrusted to them. Article 4 (1) The Soviet state and all its bodies function on the basis of socialist law, ensure the maintenance of law and order, and safeguard the interests of society and the rights and freedoms of citizens. (2) State organizations, public organizations and officials shall observe the Constitution of the USSR and Soviet laws. Article 5 Major matters of state shall be submitted to nationwide discussion and put to a popular vote (referendum). |
"Her Argument of "It's strange why they say the authority is rooted in the Constitution" is in itself strange, supposedly she is a "Constitutional Lawyer", if so, then she knows Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution which states:
"Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."
She is among the many Senators who, cannot read! So, the ones who can, must read this to them and refresh their memory...
Poor Thunder Thighs Hillary seems to be confusing a lot of people these days. According to a new Gallop poll just released, the American voters "OPPOSE" her ever being President by a 3 - 1 margin. YES.... 3 to 1. Only 16% of those polled said they would support her candidacy.
BWWWAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHA
Shouldn't that be : "Hillary confuses Janet Reno for philandering playboy husband"??
Sorry........I just couldn't resist.
I REALLY despise that woman!!
Just wait until some brainless liberal President confuses law abiding gun owners with terrorists and really starts using the powers under the Patriot Act.
Next, they'll be coming after your Bibles.
All this will be made possible through techniques honed during the War on Drugs, and powers given to the Feds under the banner of public safety for the War on Terror.
This stuff will start in earnest after someone like Hillary gets in the White House, and the GOP loses the House or Senate. Just watch. The Dems are going to run someone toward the middle who is nothing but the embodiment of Joe Stalin.
I hope she runs. The American people will not elect her. It will be a worse spanking than what Kerry got in the last election.
My, you're optimistic! ;*)
Democrats see terrorism as a tactic.
All through the 90's treated it like a crime, ..
Wait for it to happen and then go after the perps.
that's about right ! Don't you just MARVEL at the hypocrisy ... it was OK for her to get her hands on the FBI files of 900+ US citizens, but the POTUS of another political persuasion in a time of war dare not allow surveillence of alien terrorists' calls to the US .. just takes my breath away!
LOL....
No, I'm a realist.
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.