To: inquest
inquest: "He doesn't have their decisions to back up the view that Congress can't restrict him."
Nor does he need such a decision, that's just your lame straw man argument. The President has all that he needs in the decisions of virtually every court to have ever addressed the matter and that state that the President's warrantless intercepts are constitutional.
37 posted on
02/13/2006 7:42:04 PM PST by
Boot Hill
("...and Joshua went unto him and said: art thou for us, or for our adversaries?")
To: Boot Hill
The President has all that he needs in the decisions of virtually every court to have ever addressed the matter and that state that the President's warrantless intercepts are constitutional.Constitutional is not synonymous with uninfringible. When you can find court decisions that say that it is, then you'd have somewhere to go with this.
38 posted on
02/13/2006 8:36:16 PM PST by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson