will fit their lawsuit. Taylor's ruling will be
overturned by appellate review, or the SCOTUS.
Taylor, Anna Katherine Johnston Diggs
|
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.
Will do. I certainly recall HEARING it several times on Fox news during multiple shows. If I get wind of it again I'll shoot ya a ping.
THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEMTITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1802 Prev | § 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General
Bush was denied wiretaps, bypassed them (FISA Court denied them in unprecedented numbers)
FISA JUDGES SAY BUSH WITHIN THE LAW (Why Has the MSM Ignored This Story?)
The first link isn't about wiretapping Americans making phone calls at all. Not sure why you posted it.
The second link is about wiretapping, but says it only applies when nobody involved is in the USA. Obviously inapplicable here since TSP involves wiretapping people in the USA.
The third link indicates the FISA court denied some 3% (179 of the 5,645) of the Bush Admin's wiretap requests - astonishing when you consider they'd only done that to 2 of the prior 13,102 applications in 22 years - a real rubberstamp court. So when they stopped rubberstamping his requests, he ignored the law and stopped asking for them. So much for 'faithfully executing the laws' on the President's part. Denying an 'unprecdented' 3% of wiretap applications simply doesn't justify ignoring and breaking the law.
The fourth link is about some *retired* FISA judges. They also agreed the law needed changing and that Bush was in risk of being dragged into the USSC. So it isn't a very good support, is it?
These are the best arguments you can come up with? Did you even read them before you posted them or what?
--R.
I am looking forward (but not with pleasure) to reading the opinion in the case, and the judicial and appointment background of the judge who issued this opinion.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article: "The Democrat Party - 1828 - 2006 - R.I.P."
Please see my most recent statement on running for Congress, here.
a little about judge anna diggs taylors baggage.....her daddy was a crook.....this has been forgotten by many, and maybe it explains her anti-America ruling:
Charles C. Diggs, Jr.
Democrat, Michigan (1955-1980)
The Honorable Charles C. Diggs, Jr. was found guilty in 1978 for taking kickbacks from three of his congressional staffers; he was re-elected to office; then censured by the House, and finally resigned, then went to prison for 7 months.
Indicted of 11 counts of mail fraud and 18 counts of falsifying congressional payrolls. Prosecutors said he received $66,000 in kickbacks from 1973-1977 from several staffers, and used some of that money for his personal business and congressional expenses.
Guilty of: Diggs was found guilty of all 29 counts against him in October 1978, then the next month he was re-elected to his 13th term in Congress.
The Jailbird Count. Prison term: 7 months at minimum-security prison at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. Diggs became a member of the Congressional Prison Caucus.
Congressional censure: In July 1979, the House of Representatives unanimously censured Diggs, after half an hour of floor discussion. No Member of Congress stood up to defend him. In a letter to his colleagues, Diggs admitted misuse of public funds for private use. He apologized to Congress and agreed to repay the House more than $45,000 and accept the censure. The fine would come out of his paycheck, at $500 a month. (A nice sweet deal: that means Diggs would have to stay in office another 7-1/2 years and have $500 deducted each month to pay restitution. But that didn't happen.)
Diggs also faced a $29,000 tax bill from the IRS for failing to pay income taxes on the payroll kickback money.
After having been found guilty, then disgraced by his colleagues in Congress, it still took Diggs another full year to resign from Congress, in June 1980. He probably waited until June so that he could still collect his Congressional salary and to wait the verdict of the U.S. Supreme Court. Diggs appealed to the Court to review his conviction; the Court let his conviction stand without comment.
Historical note: Only once before in the twentieth century had the House censured a member, and that was 60 years earlier in a case of a Texas Congressman who was punished for inserting objectionable material into the Congressional Record
The C.B.B. Spin
Diggs's excuse: The employees willingly gave him the kick-backs because he was in "very dire financial straits."
Sources: Richard L. Lyons, "Rep. Diggs Admits Misuse of Funds, Accepts Censure," Washington Post, June 30, 1979, A1. Irvin Molotsky, "Obituary: Charles Diggs, 75, Congressman Censured Over Kickbacks," New York Times, August 26, 1998, D18
http://www.congressionalbadboys.com/Diggs.htm
So here's my question. when coming across the border, you are subject to search, correct? There are no warrants involved, and I don't believe they need "probable cause" to do it. So if it's okay to search persons or cars coming across the border, why not information as well?
If this is a dumb point, feel free to say so. Just a thought.
JMO, but, this is going to go all the way to the SCOTUS and Roberts can stay in on this one, so I do not expect it to stick.
Mark Levin is going to be hot tonight!
We better stock the lounge early!
Not at all. I think its brilliant.
Go Nova!
Taylor, Anna Katherine Johnston Diggs
|
look, it took til comment #6: "What was the judges name btw?" haha.
Banish the lot from this land they apparently hate so much!!
She looks like the NOW crowd
This is because the search is not being conducted for the purpose of conducting a criminal investigation. The court considers first whether the activity in question is done with a "reasonable expectation of privacy". Many things that look like a search, are not in fact searches for 4th Amendment purposes. This is because the activity does not carry the expectation of privacy under the circumstances.
It is a difficult analysis, and in all sincerity we should always be a check on the government's use of power. But the way to protect our liberty is by first protecting our very lives. We must elect good people if we are to be a free people. We must also be HEAVILY ARMED.
A strong constitution does not mean we have to be weak and vulnerable. I have to admit that my view of this issue has evolved (I hate that word) over the last 5 years. The danger is real, and it is more serious to me than my boring phone calls and e-mails being monitored. I don't know any other way to say it.
Alright. Don't panic. This is only a conspiracy plot, by the Republicans -- sorry, I meant, by Pres. Bush. So, as when the bastards hit us, we repubs can say, "I told you so.."
So those searches are OK because, when you come across the border or get on an airplane, you expect to be searched?
Before we let them do this to us, isn't there a way to impeach judges. It seems to me that if the people were able to successfully remove one of these judges others would have to think before they made political instead of rational decisions.
Get every Dem on the record now... Figures when you need the MSM to get campaign ad snippets for all those that oppose saving Americans from certain death, they are no where to be found.
Well, all I know is a federal judge has ruled the warrantless wiretapping illegal and unconstitutional. The president feels he doesn't have to use FISA. The president also feels he can basically do whatever he wants to "fight terrorism." Thank God at least one federal judge feels there must be some restraint on the executive's powers, especially seeing as we are not in a period of war.
Article 2 of the Constitution states that the president must "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Clearly, by circumventing FISA, president Bush is not faithfully executing any law, but is rather violating it. I suggest you take some time to read the Constitution of the US before you do any further harm to your reputation, whatever that might be.
Your musings on ECHELON are just that... neither you nor I know exactly what ECHELON does. I personally find that alarming. I think government secrecy does more harm than good and circumvents a free society.
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.