To: inquest
inquest: "No court has held that constitutional is synonymous with uninfringible"
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.
43 posted on
02/13/2006 10:46:30 PM PST by
Boot Hill
("...and Joshua went unto him and said: art thou for us, or for our adversaries?")
To: Boot Hill
Good, so you don't contest the fact that his powers of surveillance aren't uninfringible.
44 posted on
02/14/2006 6:37:39 AM 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