America... Spying on Americans

I'm telling you he is authorized to ignore an unconstitutional law ab initio, but bears some risk in doing so prior to the Judicial determination.

Debra_Law wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Tico,

You believe that the FISCR court decision does away with FISA completely?

Ticomaya wrote:

No, I don't.

FISA is either consitutional or unconstitutional.

If FISA is constitutional, it is the supreme law of the land and it is binding upon the president.

And to the extent it's unconstitutional, it's not worth the paper it's written on.

Quote:

Nevertheless, Tico takes the untenable and irreconcilable position that FISA is consitutional, yet the president is not bound by the limitations that FISA places on the executive branch.

No, you take the untenable position that a portion of a law cannot be unconstitutional while another portion of a law is.

To the extent it encroaches on the President's inherent authority, FISA is unconstitutional.

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

That is the only interpretation that supports the spying in the fashion you claim.

Ticomaya wrote:

No, it isn't.

Tico takes the position that the president has inherent power to violate a constitutional enactment. Tico's position has no legal support. See Youngstown.

Wrong, and you are misrepresenting my position. But a President need not follow an unconstitutional enactment. You disagree?

Bush has admitted he is ignoring FISA. His Attorney General has offered lame and loose legal justifications that he ought not to dare attempt in any court of law. Only blind partisan followers buy the president's bogus legal arguments. . . .

Bush, once it was learned what he was doing, could have asked Congress to grant him the authority that he believed he needed. Instead, he has taken the Nixon approach, and wants to do what he wants to do - the Congress be damned.

The federal government would have to obtain permission from a secret court to continue a controversial form of surveillance, which the National Security Agency now conducts without warrants, under a bill being proposed by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).

Specter's proposal would bring the four-year-old NSA program under the authority of the court created by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The act created a mechanism for obtaining warrants to wiretap domestic suspects. But President Bush, shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks, authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on communications without such warrants. The program was revealed in news reports two months ago. . . .

(AP) A vocal Republican critic of the Bush administration's eavesdropping program will preside over Senate efforts to write checks to the program into law, but he was pessimistic Wednesday that the White House wanted to listen to congressional concerns.

"They want to do just as they please, for as long as they can get away with it," Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I think what is going on now without congressional intervention or judicial intervention is just plain wrong."

The president has no authority to supercede laws established by congress.

mysteryman wrote:

Yes,we are running a deficit,but can you name the last President that didnt run a deficit?
Dont say Clinton,because there was a deficit during all of his admin also.

I do say Clinton, because the federal budget ran a surplus from 1998 to 2001. (Source: Congressional Budget Office: Historical Budget Data (PDF).) Note that Congress passed the 2001 budget during Clinton's presidency, even though Bush presided over most of its implementation. I don't see how this is relevant to the NSA's illegal warrantless spying on Americans, and Bush's illegal authorization of it. But since you braught it up and it's easily refuteable, MM, I might as well refute it. (PS: I did note the linguistic trickery in your choice of words. "[T]here was a deficit during all of his admin also." This suggests that the budget was never in surplus, but allows for weasel room because "all of his admin" can be interpreted as referring to the whole period of 1993-2001.)

cicerone imposter wrote:

The president has no authority to supercede laws established by congress.

So,does this mean that Lincoln had no legal authority to issues the emancipation proclamation?
After all,slavery was legal,according to congress.

Actually, I take that back - Tico does get it:

Quote:

I'm telling you he is authorized to ignore an unconstitutional law ab initio, but bears some risk in doing so prior to the Judicial determination.

You are exactly right. He bears the risk of getting caught breaking the law. He bears the risk of being investigated for breaking the law; he bears the risk of being prosecuted for breaking the law. And that is exactly the process which we are seeing unfold in front of us.

Cycloptichorn

What portion of FISA is unconstitutional? Is that portion unconstitutional on its face or as applied? May the unconstitutional provision or application be severed from the statute consistently with congressional intent?

An Update on President Bush's NSA Program

Quote:

Bush has admitted he is ignoring FISA. His Attorney General has offered lame and loose legal justifications that he ought not to dare attempt in any court of law. Only blind partisan followers buy the president's bogus legal arguments. . . .

Bush, once it was learned what he was doing, could have asked Congress to grant him the authority that he believed he needed. Instead, he has taken the Nixon approach, and wants to do what he wants to do - the Congress be damned.

mysteryman wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

The president has no authority to supercede laws established by congress.

So,does this mean that Lincoln had no legal authority to issues the emancipation proclamation?
After all,slavery was legal,according to congress.

What federal law did the emancipation proclamation violate?

FreeDuck wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

The president has no authority to supercede laws established by congress.

So,does this mean that Lincoln had no legal authority to issues the emancipation proclamation?
After all,slavery was legal,according to congress.

What federal law did the emancipation proclamation violate?

It was a military order issued by Lincoln in his capacity as the Commander in Chief, which arguably offends Debra Law's Youngstown decision (although it had obviously not been decided back then).