I have read several posts on many differnent threads where you have deconstructed posted information and then opined on the relevance of that information to the question of constitutional limitations on the Executive Branch.
I read your refutation of assetions made by Byron York about the nature of the Court of Review's rulings in the action known as "Sealed case".
You have postited, if I may encapsulate, that there is no way to judge the constituionality of the Presidents actions in regards to warrantless eavesdropping without knowing all the circumstances relevant to each action. This is not what you said but my take on your position. Is it accurate?
My problem with your analysis of the issue is that you give no benefit-of-the-doubt to the President. If this program is operated as has been described, with prior notification of appropriate congressional committee personnel, with a comprehensive review process that insures some congressional oversight, and with the acknowledgement by the Court of Review to the real limitations of the FISA law on Presidential authority, is'nt it real likely that, absent a far-left-of-center Supreme Court, this program is entirely lawful? And if not, how should Abraham Lincoln and FDR be judged considering their (mis?)use of Article 2?
I know this is a "hypothetical" but I would appreciate an answer.
Incidently, how can a President work with a congress that is both predisposed to limit the powers of the Executive Branch, and full of members that don't care about anything but damaging the President as much as possible?
Freegards,
PresidentFelon
Close enough. The principle "we only surveil communications of known or suspected foreign terrorists" implies that all of the communications being intercepted have a reasonable chance of including foreign intelligence information - but the President's defense doesn't outright assert "all of the communications being intercepted have a reasonable chance of including foreign intelligence information."
And even if he did, our system of government is set up so that at some point, the issue is tested by an independent body - Congress or the Courts. In the case of criminal activity, by the Courts.
Answering the 4th amendment question can come about on a case-by-case facts basis, or if he wants more predictability in prosecution, adherence to the principles that avoid a "precrime" or bootstrapping sort of surveillance of US Citizens.
Or, in another alternative, by disposing of cases (people) without resort to courts.
My problem with your analysis of the issue is that you give no benefit-of-the-doubt to the President.
As opposed to those who conclude the operation is constitutional purely out of deference? And I might add, some of these folks would not apply the same deference if the President was a Democrat. I'm just attempting to add a bit of balance - and if you've read my posts, you'll find a number of them that do opine that the program is most likely (but not necessarily) within constitutional parameters.
Again, our system of government depends on checks and balances. I think it is risky to individual freedom to trust any branch. Obviously, I stuck a nerve with you, and it seems you trust the Office of President to run without being checked by another branch.
Certainly, that is your right. And it is mine to shun that degree of trust.
And if not, how should Abraham Lincoln and FDR be judged considering their (mis?)use of Article 2?
Some actions of FDR and Lincoln were ruled to be unconstitutional.
Incidently, how can a President work with a congress that is both predisposed to limit the powers of the Executive Branch, and full of members that don't care about anything but damaging the President as much as possible?
I have an aversion to bullshit arguments, such as "Congress meant to include warrantless wiretapping of Americans who might be terrorist sympathizers, when it passed the AUMF," or "In re: Sealed Case stands for the proposition that the NSA program is constitutional." If the spirit moves me, I'll mount criticism, with more rationale to support my argument than most FReepers take the time and effort to prepare.
Well said.