"I've only lusted in my heart." hmmmm.....is THAT his heart???
Posted on 02/13/2006 4:55:15 AM PST by seanmerc
Former President Jimmy Carter, who publicly rebuked President Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program this week during the funeral of Coretta Scott King and at a campaign event, used similar surveillance against suspected spies. "Under the Bush administration, there's been a disgraceful and illegal decision -- we're not going to the let the judges or the Congress or anyone else know that we're spying on the American people," Mr. Carter said Monday in Nevada when his son Jack announced his Senate campaign. "And no one knows how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated under this secret act," he said. The next day at Mrs. King's high-profile funeral, Mr. Carter evoked a comparison to the Bush policy when referring to the "secret government wiretapping" of civil rights leader Martin Luther King. But in 1977, Mr. Carter and his attorney general, Griffin B. Bell, authorized warrantless electronic surveillance used in the conviction of two men for spying on behalf of Vietnam. The men, Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey, challenged their espionage convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which unanimously ruled that the warrantless searches did not violate the men's rights. In its opinion, the court said the executive branch has the "inherent authority" to wiretap enemies such as terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when surveillance is "conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons." That description, some Republicans say, perfectly fits the Bush administration's program to monitor calls from terror-linked people to the U.S. The Truong case, however, involved surveillance that began in 1977, before the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which established a secret court for granting foreign intelligence warrants.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Or declining to carry them into execution, or carrying them into execution in only a limited fashion.
Which wouldn't affect the President's inherent constitutional power to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.
They were probably working toward the democratization of Vietnam...
Not only that, but he'd have to actually set up the technical hardware himself, and maintain it himself, but hey, if he's got the energy for it, more power to him. ;-)
Or any other person he chooses from within the executive department.
Peanuthead is afraid of bunny rabbits. What else could we expect from such a character?
Congress, not the President, determines the laws for carrying into execution his powers.
You're missing half the formula since it is the Constitution, not Congress, that determines the lawful extent of any such laws, and limits them to only those laws that aid in "carrying into execution" the powers granted by the Constitution. Thus, any laws that violate, infringe or limit the execution of any Constitutional powers are not within their authority to create.
And, of course, withdrawing or limiting the scope of such laws. Without them, none of the President's subordinates can be exempted from the legal consequences of their actions.
Thus, any laws that violate, infringe or limit the execution of any Constitutional powers are not within their authority to create.
Unsupported falsehood. The power of making rules for the military expressly "limits" the exercise of executive power.
You are incorrect on multiple counts.
First, the Congressional authority to "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces", by its express and unequivocal terms, extends only to the armed forces of the United States; the NSA is a civilian agency of the Department of Defense and not such an armed force.
Second, since the President's authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence wiretaps resides not only in the President's duties as Commander-in-Chief, but also in his duties as this nation's sole representative in matters of foreign affairs, the "make rules" clause can not be extended to cover the President's foreign affairs powers.
Third, the only way Congress can take away a power that the Constitution grants the President is through a constitutional amendment, and an ordinary Congressional enactment is not such an instrument.
And the President is given command of said armed forces. The fact that Congress can still make rules for them therefore enables it to limit his power. You said Congress can't do that. That is demonstrably incorrect.
"I've only lusted in my heart." hmmmm.....is THAT his heart???
One again, you are wrong on multiple counts.
First, since the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has been given no constitutional rule-making authority over the armed forces, then Congress can't limit the President's power where he had none in the first place.
Second, since the office of Commander-in-Chief is a civilian position, that makes him the civilian head, and not a member, of the armed forces, then Congressional authority under the Make Rules clause, which applies only to the armed forces, could not circumscribe or limit the President's own powers.
Third, even if the Make Rules clause did apply in this case (it doesn't), it in no way could be used to limit the President's authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence wiretaps, which are powers granted to the President, not the armed forces.
Fourth, nor could the Make Rules clause be used to limit the President in his conduct of foreign affairs, including foreign intelligence gathering, since that clause is limited in applicability solely to the armed forces.
Fifth, nor could the Necessary and Proper clause permit Congress to circumscribe a constitutional grant of power, since that clause may only be applied to aid in "carrying into execution" the powers granted by the Constitution, not limit, violate or infringe them.
Sixth, the only way Congress can take away a power that the Constitution grants the President is through a constitutional amendment, and an ordinary Congressional enactment is not such an instrument.
Come on. You're really stretching words all over the place to make your artificial "point". Being a military commander doesn't involve the power to set rules for one's subordinates? Since when?
Since the Constitution was ratified.
And whatever the phrase Congress may "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces" meant before the Constitution was ratified, that's what it meant afterwards also.
LOL, by "default" maybe, but that's a reputable presumption and the Constitution, through the Make Rules clause, expressly and unequivocally rebuts your presumption!
Where the framers have chosen to explicitly provide a specific grant of authority to Congress, the Enumerated Powers doctrine would forbid holding that such power is also held "inherently" by others.
Therefore, since the Constitution's express language grants Congress the sole authority over the rules governing the armed forces, then Congress can never be said to be limiting or infringing the power of the President, since no such commensurate power exists for him.
LOL!
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.