Skip to comments.
Carter Allowed Surveillance in 1977
The Washington Times ^
| 11 Feb 2006
| Charles Hurt
Posted on 02/13/2006 4:55:15 AM PST by seanmerc
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 121-136 next last
To: Boot Hill
Congresses authority to regulate the powers granted the executive, extends only to "carrying into execution" those powersOr declining to carry them into execution, or carrying them into execution in only a limited fashion.
61
posted on
02/15/2006 5:53:25 AM PST
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: inquest
inquest: "Or declining to carry them into execution..."
Which wouldn't affect the President's inherent constitutional power to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.
62
posted on
02/15/2006 5:59:29 AM PST
by
Boot Hill
("...and Joshua went unto him and said: art thou for us, or for our adversaries?")
To: saveliberty
But Carter loves communist dictatorship. Why would he authorize warrantless wiretaps unless VN had a beef with Cuba? They were probably working toward the democratization of Vietnam...
63
posted on
02/15/2006 6:04:11 AM PST
by
BlueMondaySkipper
(The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. - George Orwell)
To: Boot Hill
Well, if he feels like manning the headsets himself, I guess he can have at it.
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. ;-)
64
posted on
02/15/2006 6:12:02 AM PST
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: inquest
inquest: "Well, if he feels like manning the headsets himself..."
Or any other person he chooses from within the executive department.
65
posted on
02/15/2006 6:15:31 AM PST
by
Boot Hill
("...and Joshua went unto him and said: art thou for us, or for our adversaries?")
To: seanmerc
Peanuthead is afraid of bunny rabbits. What else could we expect from such a character?
66
posted on
02/15/2006 6:27:19 AM PST
by
CodeToad
To: Boot Hill
Congress gives them the legal authorization to do those things. The President has the power to fire them for not carrying out his orders, but not the power to immunize them against the legal consequences of their actions if Congress doesn't provide for that, either implicitly or explicitly.
Congress, not the President, determines the laws for carrying into execution his powers.
67
posted on
02/15/2006 6:48:32 AM PST
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: inquest
inquest: "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.
68
posted on
02/15/2006 4:12:37 PM PST
by
Boot Hill
("...and Joshua went unto him and said: art thou for us, or for our adversaries?")
To: Boot Hill
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.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.
69
posted on
02/15/2006 4:53:37 PM PST
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: inquest
inquest: "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.
70
posted on
02/15/2006 5:57:19 PM PST
by
Boot Hill
("...and Joshua went unto him and said: art thou for us, or for our adversaries?")
To: Boot Hill
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 StatesAnd 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.
71
posted on
02/15/2006 6:37:30 PM PST
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: Beth528
"I've only lusted in my heart." hmmmm.....is THAT his heart???
72
posted on
02/15/2006 6:39:37 PM PST
by
bannie
(The government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul.)
To: inquest
inquest: "[The Constitution gives] the President...command of said armed forces. The fact that Congress can still make rules for them therefore enables [Congress] to limit his power. You said Congress can't do that."
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.
73
posted on
02/15/2006 7:35:08 PM PST
by
Boot Hill
("...and Joshua went unto him and said: art thou for us, or for our adversaries?")
To: Boot Hill
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.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?
74
posted on
02/15/2006 7:41:12 PM PST
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: inquest
inquest: "Being a military commander doesn't involve the power to set rules for one's subordinates? Since when?"
Since the Constitution was ratified.
75
posted on
02/15/2006 7:44:17 PM PST
by
Boot Hill
("...and Joshua went unto him and said: art thou for us, or for our adversaries?")
To: Boot Hill
The Constitution didn't change the rules of the English language. Whatever the term "commander in chief" meant before the Constitution was ratified, that's what it meant afterwards also.
76
posted on
02/15/2006 7:50:54 PM PST
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: inquest
inquest: "The Constitution didn't change the rules of the English language. Whatever the term "commander in chief" meant before the Constitution was ratified, that's what it meant afterwards also."
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.
77
posted on
02/15/2006 8:04:47 PM PST
by
Boot Hill
("...and Joshua went unto him and said: art thou for us, or for our adversaries?")
To: Boot Hill
Certainly. So Congress has its powers, with whatever those words imply, and the President has his powers, with whatever those words imply. Putting them together, it means that being commander in chief involves, by default, the power of setting rules, and Congress can impose its own rules that supersede them. Hence, Congress is limiting his power. Hence, you were wrong when you said that Congress can't do that.
78
posted on
02/15/2006 8:34:49 PM PST
by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: inquest
inquest: "Putting [those words] together, it means that being commander in chief involves, by default, the power of setting rules...Hence, Congress is limiting his power."
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.
79
posted on
02/15/2006 9:20:59 PM PST
by
Boot Hill
("...and Joshua went unto him and said: art thou for us, or for our adversaries?")
To: bannie
80
posted on
02/16/2006 3:50:47 AM PST
by
Beth528
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 121-136 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson