Posted on 08/17/2006 9:06:43 AM PDT by sinkspur
A federal district judge in Detroit has ruled that the Bush administration's NSA surveillance of phone conversations is unconstitutional.
The judge is unhinged. That's the only thing that will make any sense to me.
"Having actually gone to law school..."
Ok, a lawyer. Cool.
Do you think it'll be flipped on the 'standing' issue or the 'State Secrets' issue? I suspect the latter.
--R.
Not everyone on this thread tries to act like a constitutional attorney though. I read allot but do not try to pretend I am the smarter person on the planet, I am sure I am not even close to the smartest person in my little town. Neither should you. There are many, many smarter men and women surrounding POTUS Bush and give him daily legal advice. I trust their judgement more than yours and so do most on this thread it appears. Actually when it comes to know it all everthing constituionally legal, you are standing at the top of the ladder because you climbed there.
When the Constitution grants a specific power to the President (like defending the country from foreign enemies as Commander in Chief), legitimate Presidentional actions to carry out that responsibility cannot simply be waved off by the ACLU and some friendly judge.
174 posts and finally a common sense, constitutionally sound comment. This thread reads like a senate debate.
There are dozens of situations where warrantless searches have been approved by the courts.
The Assistant Attorney General of the United States, provides a brief summary of the legal authority supporting the NSA activities described by the President.
Here is a very good thread on the facts of "warrentless wire taps"
"Bill Clinton used warantless wiretaps WHEN WE WERE NOT AT WAR. Ever hear of Echelon?"
Actually, that's not true (as far as is publicly known). George Tenet testified to Congress that in all cases involving Echelon they obtained warrants from FISA. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it.
Well said.
Prior to her appointment to the Federal Court in 1979, Judge Taylor was a private practitioner, a legislative assistant, an Assistant Wayne County Prosecutor, an Assistant United States Attorney, an Adjunct Professor of Law at Wayne State Law School, and an Assistant Corporation Counselor, City of Detroit. She is a 1950 Graduate of the Northfield School for Girls, East Northfield, Massachusetts, and received her B.A. from Barnard College in 1954 and L.L.B. from Yale Law School in 1957. Judge Taylor was appointed to the bench on November 2, 1979.
She is a Trustee of the Detroit Institute of Arts, the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan and the Henry Ford Health System.
She is a member of the State Bar (Committees on Character and Fitness and on U.S. Courts), Federal Bar, Wolverine Bar, Black Judges Association and Women Judges Association.
I would think that would probably be impossible. Echelon harvests millions of items of communications a day. I'm not sure what testimony you're refering to, and I'm not familiar with it, but to say that every piece of information gathered by echelon is warranted is wrong.
Mental Capacity: Limited
We aren't wat war with all those other groups. Maybe we should be, but right now efforst to counter those other groups is rightly being handled by law enforcement and international cooperation. At any rate, the issue here is whether or not it's OK for the president to circumvent FISA in trying to gather information to fight terrorism. To put it another way, "is it OK for the president to circumvent the law."
I'd say the answer would have to be "no." Presidents have been impeached for less.
When I earlier stated the Judge admitted they didn't have standing I wasn't meaning she came strait out and said it because that would be pretty dumb even for a dumb judge but her ruling indicates they don't have real legal standing but she's giving it to them.
:) here, here!
"We aren't wat war with all those other groups. Maybe we should be, but right now efforst to counter those other groups is rightly being handled by law enforcement and international cooperation."
Surely you don't claim to know the details of how we're handling these other groups. If you're as smart as you sound, surely you know that 95% of this war will be fought without the rest of the world even knowing what happened.
"To put it another way, "is it OK for the president to circumvent the law." "
Whether or not it's "OK" is certainly debateable, but, as I pointed out above, there is precedence for it.
Since the Border Patrol may some day be used to abused Civil Liberties by a Future Administration, we must abolish it. Ditto here the US Military. U
An utterly absurd nonsensical argument
What if, What if, What if, can be played all day. It is a sophomoric exercise. BY this logic NOTHING should ever be done because ANYTHING might possibly be abused at some point in the future.
Finally since this is based on the Commander in Chiefs powers to Repel sudden attack, all this handwrining about "Future Administrations" is merely the intellectually weak rationalizations by those who WANT to find any excuse possible to oppose this.
This is an inherent Presidential Power in action. IF you don't like it you will have to admen the US Constitution to change it.
I suspect that real judges prefer to let the tug of war regarding POTUS power play out politically. Besides that, addressing the merits of this case will only encourage the ACLU to bring these types of claims.
Reversing on Article III grounds does not sound very sexy to most conservatives, but in the long haul it is good practice to make these goons have an actual "case or controversy".
After reading what little I have regarding the ruling, it does not seem like the best well thought out legal decision made. I feel confident she will get the brush aside that normally happens frequently to the 9th circuit of appeals here.
Forum shopping, I'll bet
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.