T Nation

DOJ Brief on NSA Surveillance

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Please refer to the basic civics point in the other thread: Constitutional authority of the President cannot be limited via statute.
[/quote]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the judiciary is responsible for interpreting the constitutionality of statutes, correct? So has there been a ruling that this application of said statute interferes with the constitutional authority of the President? If not, are you implying that the President has the authority to ignore laws that he or she finds unconstitutional without fear of punishment?

The FISA laws were modified and then signed by Bush post-9-11 (as part of the Patriot Act). If Bush thought the laws were limiting his ability to do his job, why did he sign his name on to them?

Why try to sneak around the law that he signed, instead?

bradley,

Since lumpy doesn’t have the stones to make a friendly bet, I’m wondering if you would be interested.

I contend that the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold the Constitutionality of the President’s action in this case.

If I am correct, you will change your name to: BushisRight.

If you are correct, I will leave the forum for an entire year or (change my name to whatever disaster you support for national office).

It’s your choice.

Deal?

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
bradley,

Since lumpy doesn’t have the stones to make a friendly bet, I’m wondering if you would be interested.

I contend that the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold the Constitutionality of the President’s action in this case.

If I am correct, you will change your name to: BushisRight.

If you are correct, I will leave the forum for an entire year or (change my name to whatever disaster you support for national office).

It’s your choice.

Deal?

JeffR[/quote]

I’m no lawyer, but this wager doesn’t seem to make sense. How can the Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality of a person’s actions? Their role is to interpret law, correct?

Are you trying to say that you believe the Supreme Court will rule that the law the President broke is unconstitutional? That implies that you believe he broke a law, right?

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Please refer to the basic civics point in the other thread: Constitutional authority of the President cannot be limited via statute.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the judiciary is responsible for interpreting the constitutionality of statutes, correct? So has there been a ruling that this application of said statute interferes with the constitutional authority of the President? If not, are you implying that the President has the authority to ignore laws that he or she finds unconstitutional without fear of punishment?[/quote]

He has the DUTY to ignore laws that he finds unconstitutionally limit presidential powers.

[quote]Moriarty wrote:

JeffR

I’m no lawyer, but this wager doesn’t seem to make sense. How can the Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality of a person’s actions? Their role is to interpret law, correct?

Are you trying to say that you believe the Supreme Court will rule that the law the President broke is unconstitutional? That implies that you believe he broke a law, right?
[/quote]

That was just a pathetic attempt.

[quote]doogie wrote:
Moriarty wrote:

JeffR

I’m no lawyer, but this wager doesn’t seem to make sense. How can the Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality of a person’s actions? Their role is to interpret law, correct?

Are you trying to say that you believe the Supreme Court will rule that the law the President broke is unconstitutional? That implies that you believe he broke a law, right?

That was just a pathetic attempt. [/quote]

No, it really wasn’t. It was a simple question. Does the Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality of a person’s actions? Seriously…save the mock outrage and overblown language and answer the question; I don’t have the patience to play the partisan games in this forum anymore. I honestly just want some clarification on what this wager, and more importantly this issue, is about. If what I’ve described is not accurate help me understand your position. Stop reading sarcasm that isn’t there into my posts, and stop wasting my time by injecting it into your responses to mine, please.

[quote]doogie wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Please refer to the basic civics point in the other thread: Constitutional authority of the President cannot be limited via statute.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the judiciary is responsible for interpreting the constitutionality of statutes, correct? So has there been a ruling that this application of said statute interferes with the constitutional authority of the President? If not, are you implying that the President has the authority to ignore laws that he or she finds unconstitutional without fear of punishment?

He has the DUTY to ignore laws that he finds unconstitutionally limit presidential powers. [/quote]

That is all good and fine…but in doing so he is putting himself in a position to be charged with a crime, in which case he may appeal to the judiciary, which will then rule on the consitutionality of the statute in question, correct? That is the way this works, right? You break a law, are punished for it, and then appeal your case to the judiciary. And again, don’t waste my time and yours with childish remarks. I am asking a simple question in the hopes of getting a clear response that alleviates some of my confusion on this subject.

If I can’t just get some simple, coherent responses I would just as soon bow out of here completely that read through childish nonsense.

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
doogie wrote:
Moriarty wrote:

JeffR

I’m no lawyer, but this wager doesn’t seem to make sense. How can the Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality of a person’s actions? Their role is to interpret law, correct?

Are you trying to say that you believe the Supreme Court will rule that the law the President broke is unconstitutional? That implies that you believe he broke a law, right?

That was just a pathetic attempt.

No, it really wasn’t. It was a simple question. Does the Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality of a person’s actions? Seriously…save the mock outrage and overblown language and answer the question; I don’t have the patience to play the partisan games in this forum anymore. I honestly just want some clarification on what this wager, and more importantly this issue, is about. If what I’ve described is not accurate help me understand your position. Stop reading sarcasm that isn’t there into my posts, and stop wasting my time by injecting it into your responses to mine, please.[/quote]

Ok. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I really didn’t think you were that ignorant.

Someone will file a lawsuit (I think it’s already happened) saying their rights were violated and that the president violated FISA. Then the case will work it’s way to the Supreme Court, where they will rule that FISA was an unconstitutional limit on presidential powers.

[quote]doogie wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
doogie wrote:
Moriarty wrote:

JeffR

I’m no lawyer, but this wager doesn’t seem to make sense. How can the Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality of a person’s actions? Their role is to interpret law, correct?

Are you trying to say that you believe the Supreme Court will rule that the law the President broke is unconstitutional? That implies that you believe he broke a law, right?

That was just a pathetic attempt.

No, it really wasn’t. It was a simple question. Does the Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality of a person’s actions? Seriously…save the mock outrage and overblown language and answer the question; I don’t have the patience to play the partisan games in this forum anymore. I honestly just want some clarification on what this wager, and more importantly this issue, is about. If what I’ve described is not accurate help me understand your position. Stop reading sarcasm that isn’t there into my posts, and stop wasting my time by injecting it into your responses to mine, please.

Ok. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I really didn’t think you were that ignorant.

Someone will file a lawsuit (I think it’s already happened) saying their rights were violated and that the president violated FISA. Then the case will work it’s way to the Supreme Court, where they will rule that FISA was an unconstitutional limit on presidential powers.[/quote]

Well you’ve learned a valuable lesson I suppose. In the future, you should definitely assume that I am ignorant as to what you, and others, are thinking. I do not read minds.

So, in essence, you gave me a bunch of shit to, in the end, tell me I had correctly interpreted your position on the issue? Yup, I’m in the T-Nation Politics Forum. Not for long though…have fun with this little game you play here guys…

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Please refer to the basic civics point in the other thread: Constitutional authority of the President cannot be limited via statute.

Moriarty wrote:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the judiciary is responsible for interpreting the constitutionality of statutes, correct? So has there been a ruling that this application of said statute interferes with the constitutional authority of the President? If not, are you implying that the President has the authority to ignore laws that he or she finds unconstitutional without fear of punishment?[/quote]

The judiciary has the final word, but they haven’t opined on every open issue. Until such time as they do, each other branch has the duty, power and responsibility to interpret the Constitution for itself.

The President can refuse to enforce laws he finds to be unconstitutional.

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
doogie wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
doogie wrote:
Moriarty wrote:

JeffR

I’m no lawyer, but this wager doesn’t seem to make sense. How can the Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality of a person’s actions? Their role is to interpret law, correct?

Are you trying to say that you believe the Supreme Court will rule that the law the President broke is unconstitutional? That implies that you believe he broke a law, right?

That was just a pathetic attempt.

No, it really wasn’t. It was a simple question. Does the Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality of a person’s actions? Seriously…save the mock outrage and overblown language and answer the question; I don’t have the patience to play the partisan games in this forum anymore. I honestly just want some clarification on what this wager, and more importantly this issue, is about. If what I’ve described is not accurate help me understand your position. Stop reading sarcasm that isn’t there into my posts, and stop wasting my time by injecting it into your responses to mine, please.

Ok. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I really didn’t think you were that ignorant.

Someone will file a lawsuit (I think it’s already happened) saying their rights were violated and that the president violated FISA. Then the case will work it’s way to the Supreme Court, where they will rule that FISA was an unconstitutional limit on presidential powers.

Well you’ve learned a valuable lesson I suppose. In the future, you should definitely assume that I am ignorant as to what you, and others, are thinking. I do not read minds.

So, in essence, you gave me a bunch of shit to, in the end, tell me I had correctly interpreted your position on the issue? Yup, I’m in the T-Nation Politics Forum. Not for long though…have fun with this little game you play here guys…[/quote]

No, my position is not that the president broke a law. My position is that Congress passed an unconstitutional law.

[quote]doogie wrote:
He has the DUTY to ignore laws that he finds unconstitutionally limit presidential powers.[/quote]

The president has the duty to ignore a law he personally signed?

If the president thought the law was unconstitutional or was limiting his ability to fight terrorism, then he should have gotten Congress to change the law. This Congress has given the president almost every single thing he’s asked for (I can’t think of anything Congress has denied Bush, as far as the war on terror goes. Can you?)

Instead of working within the legal boundaries, Bush signed the law (as part of the Patriot Act) and then tried to sneak around the law in the dead of night. Bush even spoke publicly about how all wiretapping was done with a warrant, following the law as required… while he was breaking that very law.

President Bush, April 20, 2004:
“Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires – a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.”

Boy, good thing he wasn’t lying about blow jobs, huh? He’s only lying about breaking a law that he personally signed.

Now that Bush’s been caught with his hand in the cookie jar, he wants to claim that the law he broke was unconstitutional, and that the law should be changed retroactively? Have we become a banana republic where the president can make up his own rules and break the laws he doesn’t like?

Either you think the president can break the law, or you think the president can’t break the law. Seems like a lot of guys here think it’s okay when the president breaks the law… as long as they like the particular president. I guess that is more important than if the president does something illegal.

NOTE: Edited from original post.

Another indication that we may not know as much about the NSA program as we think we do:

http://www.normantranscript.com/feeds/apcontent/apstories/apstorysection/D8FL8N7O0.xml.txt/resources_apstoryview

KEY EXCERPT:

When asked what prompted the move to give lawmakers more details, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino the administration stated “from the beginning that we will work with members of Congress, and we will continue to do so regarding this vital national security program.”

At least one Democrat left the four-hour House session saying he had a better understanding of legal and operational aspects of the anti-terrorist surveillance program, being conducted without warrants. But he said he still had a number of questions.

“It’s a different program than I was beginning to let myself believe,” said Alabama Rep. Bud Cramer, the senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee’s oversight subcommittee.

“This may be a valuable program,” Cramer said, adding that he didn’t know if it was legal. “My direction of thinking was changed tremendously.”

Still, Cramer said, some members remain angry and frustrated, and he didn’t know why the White House waited so long to inform Congress of its actions.

Lawmakers leaving the briefing said it covered the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Justice Department papers outlining legal justifications for the operations, limited details on success stories and some highly sensitive details.

The White House has insisted that it has the legal authority to monitor terror-related international communications in cases in which one party to the call is in the United States.


Perhaps if there weren’t already all of these leaks w/r/t national security issues, the administration would be more forthcoming. Our allies have already expressed reluctance to share top secret information or cooperate in top secret collaborations because we have been so leaky – that is solid harm to our national security.

At least one Democrat left the four-hour House session saying he had a better understanding of legal and operational aspects of the anti-terrorist surveillance program, being conducted without warrants. But he said he still had a number of questions.

“It’s a different program than I was beginning to let myself believe,” said Alabama Rep. Bud Cramer, the senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee’s oversight subcommittee.

“This may be a valuable program,” Cramer said, adding that he didn’t know if it was legal. “My direction of thinking was changed tremendously.”

Wow. Does this actually mean that the spin the enemies of the Prsident put on this program was incorrect?

It is sad that our political system has come to this.

[quote]doogie wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
doogie wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
doogie wrote:
Moriarty wrote:

JeffR

I’m no lawyer, but this wager doesn’t seem to make sense. How can the Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality of a person’s actions? Their role is to interpret law, correct?

Are you trying to say that you believe the Supreme Court will rule that the law the President broke is unconstitutional? That implies that you believe he broke a law, right?

That was just a pathetic attempt.

No, it really wasn’t. It was a simple question. Does the Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality of a person’s actions? Seriously…save the mock outrage and overblown language and answer the question; I don’t have the patience to play the partisan games in this forum anymore. I honestly just want some clarification on what this wager, and more importantly this issue, is about. If what I’ve described is not accurate help me understand your position. Stop reading sarcasm that isn’t there into my posts, and stop wasting my time by injecting it into your responses to mine, please.

Ok. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I really didn’t think you were that ignorant.

Someone will file a lawsuit (I think it’s already happened) saying their rights were violated and that the president violated FISA. Then the case will work it’s way to the Supreme Court, where they will rule that FISA was an unconstitutional limit on presidential powers.

Well you’ve learned a valuable lesson I suppose. In the future, you should definitely assume that I am ignorant as to what you, and others, are thinking. I do not read minds.

So, in essence, you gave me a bunch of shit to, in the end, tell me I had correctly interpreted your position on the issue? Yup, I’m in the T-Nation Politics Forum. Not for long though…have fun with this little game you play here guys…

No, my position is not that the president broke a law. My position is that Congress passed an unconstitutional law.[/quote]

Weird that the admin doesn’t think so.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
At least one Democrat left the four-hour House session saying he had a better understanding of legal and operational aspects of the anti-terrorist surveillance program, being conducted without warrants. But he said he still had a number of questions.

“It’s a different program than I was beginning to let myself believe,” said Alabama Rep. Bud Cramer, the senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee’s oversight subcommittee.

“This may be a valuable program,” Cramer said, adding that he didn’t know if it was legal. “My direction of thinking was changed tremendously.”

Wow. Does this actually mean that the spin the enemies of the Prsident put on this program was incorrect?

It is sad that our political system has come to this.[/quote]

Yeah, caring about things like the law, quite sad.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
At least one Democrat left the four-hour House session saying he had a better understanding of legal and operational aspects of the anti-terrorist surveillance program, being conducted without warrants. But he said he still had a number of questions.

“It’s a different program than I was beginning to let myself believe,” said Alabama Rep. Bud Cramer, the senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee’s oversight subcommittee.

“This may be a valuable program,” Cramer said, adding that he didn’t know if it was legal. “My direction of thinking was changed tremendously.”

Wow. Does this actually mean that the spin the enemies of the Prsident put on this program was incorrect?

It is sad that our political system has come to this.

Yeah, caring about things like the law, quite sad.[/quote]

You are so deluded you cannot see the truth. Keep spinning!