In 1979, Anna Diggs Taylor became the first black woman judge to be appointed to the United States District Court...
Posted on 08/18/2006 12:29:23 PM PDT by SmithL
A FEDERAL judge Thursday reaffirmed one of the Constitution's most cherished principles: No one, even the president of the United States, is above the law.
In striking down the National Security Agency's warrantless-surveillance program, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor suggested it not only violated the rights of free speech and privacy -- it intruded on the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution.
"The public interest is clear in this matter," she wrote in her 43-page opinion. "It is the upholding of the Constitution."
Our government has the ability to pursue terrorists with all due aggressiveness without shredding the Constitution. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 set up a special court to provide streamlined -- and confidential -- consideration of requests to monitor e-mail and phone traffic between people in the United States and foreign countries when terrorism is suspected.
The FISA system provides an important check against the potential abuse of the government's surveillance capabilities.
Not surprisingly, the Bush administration signaled that it would appeal Taylor's ruling.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
It is now.
Exactly, but they don't limit it to editorials.
The individual's absolute right to advocate and plan the violent overthrow of the United State's government. Once they finish representing the folks at Guantanamo, there will be an absolute right to wage war against any conservative American government. We will have to accept the Peoples Republic of the Americas to just legally defend ourselves. Of course, with a Maoist government, self defense becomes irrelevant. Rant over.
...or with the care of the inalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
...or with the Constitution itself.
I tell you, these democrats are putting the American people at greater and greater risk. Democrats do not deserve the power they have, let alone the power they seek. I hope no terrorist action occurs within our borders because if it does, most democrat officals will answer directly to the people.
I misunderstood; I thought you were discussing this article
It's just one more judge who is on the terrorist list of good friends, supporters and aide-de-camps.
When the islamic terrorist win this war, the judge will get a visit from her good buddies at al-quaeda and see what a rusty blade across her throat feels like.
American traitors are not respected by our enemies either.
Im so confused.
I thought the constitution was a living and breathing document? Subject to change by current interpretation?
Is Judge Taylor saying that its a rigid, binding contract on printed paper?
Or is it living and breathing, with current interpretation that Foreign based enemies communicating with Americans now have a right to privacy during time of war? No need to Amend the contract, as it is now breathing and pooping with rights for people in Iran.
Did Abe Lincoln know that it was a Living Breathing document? Or was he under the impression that it was a contract between the people and their government, only changing when amended with a democratic process of votes? Didn't he know that congress was in charge of all war time decisions, subject to debate in the senate while the battle field conditions changed?
Maybe Democrats could impeach Abe Lincoln posthumously for dropping Habius Corpus during time of war. He is a republican, and he also should have known that rebels had a right to trials after they burnd northern cities to the ground.
Wow, am I so confused. Head spinning.
Well, at least we know the score.
When Clintonians are in the white house we get Tax Audits of his adversaries, and FBI files collected to use against his political opponents.
With Bush, we get people in foreign lands chanting death to America having their phones tapped when they make a call inside the land of "Great Satan".
At least we know the score, and who they view as enemies.
What about judges? Since when did we allow judges to be above the law?
There's supposed to be more to the law than just saying it's whatever any seditious or treacherous judge wants it to be.
In 1979, Anna Diggs Taylor became the first black woman judge to be appointed to the United States District Court...
That can be changed. Then we hang their judge, right?
See that smirky laugh ~ she's happy to pave the way for an Islamofascist takeover of the United States.
The Democrats are determined to destroy America. I wonder what they will gain in the end.
The Constitution requires a search warrant to be issued by a judge before search (wiretaps) and seizure.
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land that the executive is sworn to uphold.
Nobody has said the terrorists shouldn't be wiretapped. The issue is solely about obtaining a warrant from a judge. Why is that such a big deal? All the executive needs to wiretap is a warrant from a judge.
This is the 4th amendment:
" The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That is THE LAW, in the United States Constitution. You are UNAMERICAN if you do not defend and uphold this amendment.
The Constitution requires a search warrant to be issued by a judge before search (wiretaps) and seizure.
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land that the executive is sworn to uphold.
Nobody has said the terrorists shouldn't be wiretapped. The issue is solely about obtaining a warrant from a judge. Why is that such a big deal? All the executive needs to wiretap is a warrant from a judge.
This is the 4th amendment:
" The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That is THE LAW, in the United States Constitution. You are UNAMERICAN if you do not defend and uphold this amendment.
Your premise is all wrong. What NSA is doing is not "wiretapping". You need to study this matter more carefully because NSA does not "wiretap, but the FBI does wiretap and they get warrents to do so. The FISA Court covers both NSA and FBI. The FISA court makes some fine distinctions based on the laws. But the ACLU keeps using the BIG LIE saying "NSA wiretaps". The FISA Court has reviewed what NSA is doing and says it IS prudent and legal. The ACLU is trying scare the public and intimidate the courts by pitting one court against the rulings of the other. The ACLU has its own agenda - the defeat of America.
This matter involves cross border conversations, not intra, or interstate conversations. The 4th Amend never applied to customs, or cross border affairs.
Liberals want you to believe that so they can re-interpret it any way they wish at the moment. More prudent and real Americans say the Constitution means what the words say and meant at the time they were written.
The ACLU suit agains NSA is based on a BIG LIE. The lie is that NSA is wiretapping US citizens. It is not doing that! The ACLU says the NSA is running a "domestic intelligence" operation on US citizens without warrants. That is another LIE. The court of jurisdiction over what NSA IS doing is called the FISA Court. That court has said what NSA is doing is both legal and prudent.
The ACLU wants to defeat America and so they went to another different court from FISA so they could pit one against the other.
The ACLU never been staffed by truth-tellers. They are all liberal lawyers working to make a buck at the expense of real American taxpayers.
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.