Posted on 03/14/2003 3:26:39 PM PST by B4Ranch
But if by "interpret" you mean to say "amend without using the Constitutional amendment process" (which is how your reply seems to read), sure- but that's not what I said.
Because Congress has the power to declare certain types of searches to be reasonable or unreasonable, or to regulate the procedure for such searches.
Well, what is the procedure for doing so? Can the government do so on a whim, or is some element of due process involved (i.e. notice, a fair hearing, appropriate checks and balances between the executive and judicial branches)?
I don't know if you refer to the procedure for secretly detaining an individual, or the procedure for listing an organization as terrorist.
If the first, we wouldn't know if someone got designated a terrorist and then detained, unless the Attorney General or the Director of the CIA gave consent to the release of that information prior to trial.
If you meant the second meaning, I don't know. Seems a moot point to the innocent individual secretly detained, though. The government has no check on its power to indefinitely detain, since it doesn't have to release any information at all, apparently.
I disagree with the ACLU about 90% of the time, but once in a while they do come up with something that I think we should all consider.
Common sense and common courtesy aren't too common any more.
I'm saying the ACLU is an evil entity who is nothing but an ideological pervert offering sweets to a naive five year-old from his car. You wouldn't trust the UN on any issue now, would ya??
" I disagree with the ACLU about 90% of the time, but once in a while they do come up with something that I think we should all consider."
Only 90% of the time? ;-)
The other 10% of the time it only sounds good -- just as with the UN. And don't go near that car, d@mmit!
By "interpret" I mean the power to declare authoritatively what the provisions of the Constitution say. That by definition is the judicial function. And I don't know what "fuss" you were referring to. I'd be impressed if you can find a single quote from a Founder - prior to the ratification of the Constitution - who said that Congress had the power of interpreting said document. It was universally understood during those debates (by both proponents and opponents of the proposed Constitution) to be the province of the courts.
Don't think so. See my exchange with mrsmith.
...or to regulate the procedure for such searches.
The Constitution already regulates such procedure. Everything else is interpretation, which the job of the judges.
That is precisely why I am against the cynically named Patriot Act. As long as the federal government wantonly leaves our borders wide open in this era of terrorism and permits mass immigration from every 3rd World Hellhole in this world this assault on our freedoms has ZERO credibility with me. Lest we need to be reminded, the Patriot Act does not address, in any material way, the underlying cause of domestic terrorism--i.e. just about anyone, from any country on earth, can easily enter America and evade our unenforced immigration laws.
What the patriot act really represents, is an acknowledgment by our government that it WILL NOT, against the wishes of the American People, put an end to the ongoing immigration circus in America. Rather IT IS saying it needs extra POLICE powers to investigate every warm body living here because it is unwilling to put America’s national security and sovereignty before political correctness or, more importantly, its constitutional obligation to defend the American People from all enemies “foreign and domestic”.
If the federal government was doing its level best to put an end to the immigration free for all by sealing our borders, dutifully enforcing its immigration laws and curtailing immigration from terrorist havens, I'd be much more receptive to allowing the government “temporary” extra powers to eliminate the threat of terrorism. At least this would show that our leaders are TRULY serious about removing the CAUSE of terrorism and that it is committed to putting the security of its people before the wacky politics of multiculturalism.
But of course our government refuses to perform its constitutional duties and take the responsible course of action. It is far easier for our leaders to acquiesce to political correctness and shove our security into a dark corner.
This ACT in my mind only proves that the federal government is transitioning into a tyrannical regime that is totally disconnected with the citizens of this nation and is, thus, becoming ever more illegitimate with each passing day.
Yes, that's the danger in this legislation. Can you imagine what a President Hillary might be able to do if that Stalinist was elected by the ever-growing contingent of riff raff in this country? The country and all its (remaining) freedoms would cease to exist.
To anyone who has ever read the draft of Patriot II, the first conclusion is that it is a rape of the uninformed sheep.
Anything...ANYTHING the ACLU feels is a "bad thing for the country" must be a good thing in the long run.
Unfortunately, because of the advent of PC and email, we have entered a 'damn-if-we-do/damn if we don't' era of National Security enforcement.
God help us...
I don't suppose it occurs to you that sometimes the ACLU will take a reasonable position on something, just so it can make itself look more respectable. It's classic bait-and-switch strategy. First you throw out a reasonable position that resonates with a lot of people so they can get media attention, then they use their influence to push a far more subversive agenda.
IOW, as I said earlier in the thread: Sometimes the devil mixes his lies with the truth.
That is their job, their duty.
If you think it neccessary to further state that they can be overridden by the Supreme Court so be it.
But that does not relieve them of their responsibility to write laws that conform with the Constitution.
The courts cannot tell them what laws to write that would fit with the court's interpretation of the Constitution!
"Reasonable" search of email is an excellent example of the congress interpretating the Constitution to write laws for situations undreamed of by our Founders. Only after that interpretation has recieved the authority of the congress and the president may the courts apply their interpretation.
Their interpretation is authoritative- unless overriden by the courts. It is the law.
Police or perps who think otherwise will be sadly disillusioned when they go to a court and say a law was without authority because the courts had not previously informed it with their interpretation!
"As the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial departments of the United States are co-ordinate, and each equally bound to support the Constitution, it follows that each must, in the exercise of its functions, be guided by the text of the Constitution according to its own interpretation of it; and, consequently, that in the event of irreconciliable interpretations, the prevalence of the one or the other department must depend upon the nature of the case, as receiving its final decision from the one or the other, and passing from that decision into effect, without involving the functions of any other.
It is certainly due from the functionaries of the several departments to pay much respect to the opinions of each other; and, as far as official independence and obligation will permit, to consult the means of adjusting differences and avoiding practical embarrassments growing out of them, as must be done in like cases between the different co-ordinate branches of the Legislative department.
But notwithstanding this abstract view of the co-ordinate and independent right of the three departments to expound the Constitution, the Judicial department most familiarizes itself to the public attention as the expositor, by the order of its functions in relation to the other departments; and attracts most the public confidence by the composition of the tribunal."
To make sure I'm being understood:
Should congressmen vote for laws that do not conform with their interpretations of the Constitution?
Should presidents sign laws that do not conform with their interpretations of the Constitution?
Optional, (but more interesting) May the congress inpeach and remove judges whose interpretations of the Constitution are extremely different from the congress's?
(Back after Children of Dune- unless it's no good)
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.