Posted on 02/13/2006 4:55:15 AM PST by seanmerc
bump
But no such finding was made, so all you have is speculation on what they might have held if it was made.
No court has held that constitutional is synonymous with uninfringible, and that's what you'd need in order to show that any court holding supports the President's claims of independence from FISA. You have nowhere to go with this. You're just recycling the same tired old stuff that's been shot down more than once before.
Once more time, the President does not require such a decision, that's just your lame straw man argument.
The President has all that he needs in the decisions from virtually every court to have ever addressed the matter and that state that the President's warrantless intercepts are constitutional.
BOOKMARK...
LOL, several points, if I may...
1. Your use of, not just a double-negative, but a triple-negative, makes your sentence all but incomprehensible!
2. Congress has the authority, under the Necessary and Proper clause, to regulate the powers granted the executive by the Constitution, but only in so far as those regulations are for the purposes of "carrying into execution" those powers, not limiting or infringing them. The very words of the Necessary and Proper clause, as well as the doctrine of the Separation of Powers would prohibit such infringement.
3. But your discussion of the constitutionality of congressional infringement of the President's powers is irrelevant in the face of this: Even the FISA court itself has concluded that the President has the inherent constitutional power to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. If he has the power, then it hasn't been infringed.
Attention span not your strong suit? His powers of surveillance are not uninfringible by Congress. You hadn't contested that. Better?
2. Congress has the authority, under the Necessary and Proper clause, to regulate the powers granted the executive by the Constitution, but only in so far as those regulations are for the purposes of "carrying into execution" those powers, not limiting or infringing them.
It also has the power under the military clauses to regulate military matters. And given that the administration has specifically cited a war resolution in its justification of this program, that makes this a military matter.
Also, if the "necessary and proper" clause gives Congress the power to give the President tools with which to carry out his functions, it also has the power to withdraw those tools, in whole or in part.
3. ... Even the FISA court itself has concluded that the President has the inherent constitutional power to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. If he has the power, then it hasn't been infringed.
Non sequitur.
Ha! You mean the ugly face of the democrats has been outprecedented again?
Of course I did.
Only in the sense that you went from a triple-negative to a double-negative.
No sale, under that argument, Congress is limited to making "rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces", and is therefore not empowered to regulate the methodology or circumstances of intelligence gathering, which are a function of the President's sole discretion in matters of foreign affairs and national security.
The AUMF defense is irrelevant to a discussion of the constitutional defense of the President's actions.
Arguable, but nonetheless it is an irrelevant digression.
It is not only relevant, but it is the core argument that undercuts everything you've tried to advance. You're going to see that statement posted a lot, so you'd better start getting used to it now.
Even the FISA court itself has concluded that the President has the inherent constitutional power to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. If he has the power, then it hasn't been infringed.
In other words, the military. This is a use of the President's military function, which makes it come under Congress's regulation. That grant of power to Congress was designed specifically for the protection against citizens from the abuse of unrestrained executive power.
The AUMF defense is irrelevant to a discussion of the constitutional defense of the President's actions.
The fact that the administration cited it shows that they view this as a war matter, which makes it a military matter, subject to Congress's regulation.
Arguable, but nonetheless it is an irrelevant digression.
The NSA only exists as a tool for the President because Congress gave it to him. The Congress giveth, and the Congress taketh away. And to whatever extent that it saith so.
You're going to see that statement posted a lot, so you'd better start getting used to it now.
Have at it. A non sequitur doesn't become a logical statement through repetition. The fact that the President has a power under the Constitution doesn't mean it hasn't been infringed. Get used to that fact.
One more time, Congress has the authority to regulate the powers granted the executive by the Constitution, but only in so far as those regulations are for the purposes of "carrying into execution" those powers, not limiting or infringing upon them.
One more time, the AUMF defense is irrelevant to a discussion of the constitutional defense of the President's actions.
One more time, that's arguable, but nonetheless it represents an irrelevant digression to a discussion of the constitutionality of the President's actions.
Nor does it become a non sequitur through your repeated and unsupported assertions that it is.
Even the FISA court itself has concluded that the President has the inherent constitutional power to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. If he has the power, then it hasn't been infringed.
Regulation involves restriction. It's a type of infringement.
One more time, that's arguable, but nonetheless it represents an irrelevant digression to a discussion of the constitutionality of the President's actions.
Feel free to consider it as irrelevant as you'd like, but it's central to this discussion. Congress gave him the practical ability to exercise these powers. It can take that practical ability away, or restrict it.
Even the FISA court itself has concluded that the President has the inherent constitutional power to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. If he has the power, then it hasn't been infringed.
Non sequitur. The fact that the President has a power under the Constitution doesn't mean it hasn't been infringed.
LOL, that will stand as the most idiotic claim in this discussion!
If it's been infringed, then the power no longer exists. If it's still a power, then there has been no infringement. If it's a constitutional power, it can not be constitutionally infringed. Basic con law.
Even the FISA court itself has concluded that the President has the inherent constitutional power to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. If he has the power, then it hasn't been infringed.
False. Look up "infringe".
LOL, you don't really want to go there, but since you insist...
infringe v.t. To break or disregard the terms or requirements of, as an oath or law; violate. To trangess or trespass on rights or privileges; encroach on.I warned you that you didn't want to go there, but there you have it: If the executive's power has been violated, then that power can no longer be said to exist.
Simple logic informs us that if the power was violated, then it wasn't actually a power in the first place, since a "power" admits to no violation, and neither does the Constitution. But we already know that because...
Even the FISA court itself has concluded that the President has the inherent constitutional power to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. If he has the power, then it hasn't been infringed.
LOL, you don't really want to go there, but since you insist...
Good, so now you looked it up, and found that "infringe" is not synonymous with "annihilate". Hence, your statement quoted at the top is false.
Incorrect since a power is defined as "the right to exercise control", if follows then that when that power is violated by prohibiting the right of control, then that is in deed synonymous with a destruction of that power.
A "power" admits to no violation, and neither does the Constitution.
Even the FISA court itself has concluded that the President has the inherent constitutional power to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. If the President has the power, then it hasn't been infringed.
In other words, by regulating it, as you earlier admitted that Congress has the power to do?
Just how many angels are you going to try to get to dance on the head of this semantic pin, anyway?
Bookmark to read later...
Incorrect, Congresses authority to regulate the powers granted the executive, extends only to "carrying into execution" those powers, which does not include violating or infringing those powers.
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.