US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

...
Justice Jackson in concurring opinion on Youngstown:
Quote:
...
3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter.Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling [343 U.S. 579, 638] the Congress from acting upon the subject. 4 Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.

...

This leaves the current seizure to be justified only by the severe tests under the third grouping, where it can be supported only by any remainder of executive power after subtraction of such powers as Congress may have over the subject. In short, we can sustain the President only by holding that seizure of such strike-bound industries is within his domain and beyond control by Congress. Thus, this Court's first review of such seizures occurs under circumstances which leave presidential power most vulnerable to attack and in the least favorable of possible constitutional postures.

...

Since congress established the laws of FISA, the president was required to follow the laws established. The president does not have the power to override existing laws. Again, I repeat, we are a country of laws.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Main Entry: 2 de facto
Function: adjective
1 : ACTUAL; especially : being such in effect though not formally recognized <a de facto state of war>
2 : exercising power as if legally constituted <a de facto government>

icant wrote, "While you apparently do, I don't think it unreasonable for the government to listen to conversations between suspected international and domestic based al Qaeda for the purpose of preventing domestic al Qaeda attacks on civilians before they have happened and consequently before probable cause can be established."

Hey, numbskull, listen closely. Nobody, NOBODY, denies the need for our government's right to listen to suspected international and domestic based al Qaeda members. What we ARE talking about is not getting court approval to listen to American citizens without court order.

Tom Clancy writes novels - just like you!

The court had to establish some reason to approve wiretaps against US citizens. Otherwise, the administration will have the "power" to impinge our our Constitutional rights of privacy without any reason. Again, we are a country of laws that even the president and congress must follow according to the Constitution to protect our rights. Power corrupts.

icant, Try to keep on topic; we're talking about unauthorized and illegal wiretaps by Bush by ignoring FISA.

We are also talking about which is the greater privacy: the privacy of phones/e-mail or intact butts.

Quote:

We are also talking about which is the greater privacy: the privacy of phones/e-mail or intact butts.

Benjamin Franklin:
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.