Posted on 02/09/2006 6:25:16 AM PST by Cboldt
Legislation cannot bypass Article II of the Constitution.
Somebody needs to explain to Senator Spector, that Scottish law does not matter here. It is the US Constitution that he took an oath to uphold.
I wonder if GW now wishes that he had backed Toomy instead of this maroon?
When was the last time a panel in Washington, made up of judges or not, looked at something and said, "no, no, that's not OUR jurisdiction'?
Steel Seizure case mentioned can be found here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=295&invol=476
Ping to Badray
Actally this is an expidited way to get it to SCOTUS which is inevitable anyway.
Balance of power = Congress in charge????
I find it almost laughable that our President has the authority to drop a nuclear weapon on our enemies without Congressional approval, but can't listen in on their phone calls?!?!?!?
Spector can not propose any legislation that contravenes the Constitution. I personally think that jerk should sit down and shut up!
Sounds like he is a member of the Tallyban.
Why would we want to submit the need for covert gathering of information to a world authority? Our President is elected to serve the people and protect the people. This wire tapping misunderstanding is getting just about as silly as the unrest over a cartoon. When do the wise prevail?
Using foreign law if need be.
My bad.....wrong case in previous link......
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=343&invol=579
YOUNGSTOWN CO. v. SAWYER, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)
1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. In these circumstances, and in these only, may he be said (for what it may be worth) to personify the federal sovereignty. If his act is held unconstitutional under these circumstances, it usually means that the Federal Government as an undivided whole lacks power. A seizure executed by the President pursuant to an Act of Congress would be supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it.2. When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law.
3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject. Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.
To bring that to a contemporaneous exchange ...
GONZALES: Well, the fact that the president, again, may have inherent authority doesn't mean that Congress has no authority in a particular area. And when we look at the words of the Constitution, and there are clear grants of authority to the Congress in a time of war.And so if we're talking about competing constitutional interests, that's when you get into, sort of, the third part of the Jackson analysis.
GRAHAM: That's where we're at right now.
GONZALES: I don't believe that's where we're at right now.
GRAHAM: That's where you're at with me.
I propose legislation dissolving the "no-way they can respond to modern technology in time anyway" FISA court.
Oh, and a serious investigation into the traitor/leaker of our nation's security secrets.
Arlen Spector=Backstabbing Rino POS.
The administration should take this immediately to SCOTUS. The legislature can not take away the powers of the president.
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.