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 ...
You're way out on a limb now. You might want to stop sawing.
The "enumerated powers" doctrine is simply the doctrine codified by the 9th and 10th amendments, which is that the only powers the federal government has are the ones granted to it by the Constitution. It does not mean that grants of power are exclusive to the organ to which the powers are granted. The Constitution specifies the instances where grants of power are exclusive. In all other instances, there's no guarantee of exclusivity.
LOL, keeping you from plunging headlong into every superfluous digression you create, is like herding cats! While I'm tempted to point out your error regarding the enumerated powers doctrine, I won't enable your digression beyond pointing out that the enumerated powers does bare on the matter you raised.
Now lets return you to your argument that you believe that you can create a right for the President where the founders chose instead to vest the right to make rules for the armed forces solely with Congress.
Of course it's correct to assert, as you do, that the office of Commander-in-Chief has inherent powers, based simply on historical precedent of what duties such a position normally entails. That's your so-called "default" powers argument.
However, where your "default" presumption falls flat on its face is when the founders chose to re-define and parse those duties, by specifically assigning the power to make rules governing the armed forces to Congress, via Article I, Section 8, clause 14.
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 violating or infringing the power of the President, since no such commensurate power exists for the President.
As if. Just Google the phrase and see what comes up.
Since the Constitution's express language grants Congress the sole authority
The "sole" part is your invention. I know that it's very convenient to your argument, but that doesn't make it reality.
I like Griffin Bell. He's a conservative who supported Bush in both 2000 and 2004.
you're right pal..so let the terrorist call into the us all they want...just hope you're not in the building they blow up when it happens again ..and it will !
No thanks, that's a fool's errand. And as I said, this is just another of your digressions and I won't let you walk me down that path.
You do realize, don't you, that your recent invention of a Presidential power to make rules governing the armed forces, is itself, already a digression, of a digression, of a digression?
Oh really? Then why don't you show me chapter and verse in the Constitution where founders explicitly granted the President the power to make rules governing the armed forces? I'll save you the trouble, there is no such provision in the Constitution, "default" or otherwise. The sole reference to such power is the power given to Congress in clause 14.
It is the height of foolishness for you to assert that the President can claim a power the founders gave explicitly and solely to Congress.
Therefore, contrary to your frivolous claim, Congress can never be said to be violating or infringing the power of the President, through the proper exercise of their rule making authority over the armed forces, since no such commensurate power exists for the President.
Are you about through with this digression?
Oh really?
Really. The Constitution specifies where grants of power are intended to be exclusive. It didn't in this instance.
Please cite chapter and verse from the Constitution where founders explicitly granted the President the power to make rules governing the armed forces.
Now where's your citation from the Constitution showing that a grant of power is automatically an exclusive grant?
LOL, oh really?
So you're saying that since the Constitution doesn't explicitly state that the President is the sole Commander-in-Chief, that Congress can take over those duties and start a war whenever it suits them?
And so you're saying also that since the Constitution doesn't explicitly state that Congress is the sole promulgator of laws, that the President can take over those duties whenever the mood strikes him?
And since there are only two references in the body of the Constitution that grant sole or exclusive authority, and then only in narrow circumstances, then it follows from your claim that there is essentially no such thing as a "separation of powers"? The national government is just one great big free-for-all, huh?
Or would you like a moment to revise and correct your foolish claim?
Does anything in the Constitution give Congress the power to act as commander in chief? If not, then there's your answer.
As for the power to "start a war whenever it suits them", they are explicitly given that power.
LOL, so you actually are claiming that Congress can in deed act as Commander-in-Chief since the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and that, as you would say, is a traditional and historical "default" power of the office of Commander-in-Chief!
Under the Articles of Confederation, perhaps, but not under our Constitution. While Congress was granted the power to declare war, it is only the President who has the power to make war. The framers specifically debated this very issue and decided against allowing Congress the power to make war, and instead, gave that power to the President, through the office of Commander-in-Chief.
I never said that.
inquest: "As for the power to 'start a war whenever it suits them', they are explicitly given that power."
Under the Articles of Confederation, perhaps, but not under our Constitution.
So by declaring war, Congress doesn't cause a war to be started? Guess Alexander Hamilton must have been smoking some pretty heavy stuff when he wrote:
"It is the province and duty of the Executive to preserve to the Nation the blessings of peace. The Legislature alone can interrupt those blessings, by placing the Nation in a state of War."
But then again, what did he know? He was just a founder.
Oh yes, of course you did. Words mean things, and you can't now escape the consequences of your words.
You are the one arguing that, notwithstanding the explicit words of the Constitution, the President has a "default right" to also make rules governing the armed forces, because, as you argue, "The Constitution specifies where grants of power are intended to be exclusive".
Then the only conclusion consistent with your imagined principle would be that Congress then has the right to act as Commander-in-Chief, since the Constitution did not specify a grant of exclusivity to the President to act as Commander-in-Chief. Therefore, according to you, Congress can not just declare war, but they can now also make war.
Those words are your albatross, either learn to live with their consequences or retract them.
Absolutely not, a "state of war" is not synonymous with actual war. There is no war till there is a clash of arms. Only the Commander-in-Chief can actually make war. Congress is limited to merely declaring that a state of war exists.
I already asked you where Congress is given any kind of right to do this. You blew right by that question and began falsely attributing opinions to me. You've continued to do so in this last post.
One more time, Congress would have that "right" as the only logical conclusion consistent with your foolish and imaginary principle that a Constitutional grant of authority for one branch of government, could be exercised by other branches, unless that grant explicitly stated it was to be an exclusive grant of power.
The fact is, that in the entire body of the Constitution, there are only two such references that explicitly grant sole or exclusive authority, and then only in narrowest of circumstances. That would mean that by your own ill-founded principle, that could be no separation of powers!
One more time, those words are your albatross, either learn to live with their consequences or retract them.
Wrong. There would have to be something in the grants of the powers to the other branches that could reasonably be construed to authorize them to exercise those powers you mention. This is the third time now you're being asked to show what grant of power to Congress might reasonably be construed to enable it to act as commander in chief.
LOL, well that's a good sign, you're backing off and beginning to modify your original foolish statement!
LOL, as you've been told several times, the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and that, as you would say, is a traditional and historical "default" power of the office of Commander-in-Chief.
Therefore, according to your own ill-begotten principle (v 1.02), Congress can now act as Commander-in-Chief and not just declare war, but make war, also. How convenient!
You're having some serious trouble with this. What you call a "modification" was the whole basis of my question back at #92, which now for the fourth time you're showing you can't answer.
the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and that, as you would say, is a traditional and historical "default" power of the office of Commander-in-Chief.
And this is the second time I've told you that I never said that.
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.