America... Spying on Americans

I understand that a line exists that the president, no matter the cause, cannot cross. I do not believe that line has been crossed.

The US has a history of secret spy programs. The U2 missions come to mind.

Just curious. What would indicate to you that the line has been crossed? Or more simply, where is that line, do you think?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That is the oath Bush took.

Do you see anything in there indicating it his his job to protect the American people?

No. He is to protect defend and preserve the Constitution. Protecting the people is left to the Legislative branch who writes the laws. The laws protect us, not the President. The Legislative branch did so with FISA and even expanded FISA with the Patriot Act.

Ticomaya wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

Are you arguing that FISA is unconstitutional?

No, I'm not. The FISCR opinion I've been citing didn't find it unconstitutional, and in dicta it upheld the rulings of those prior cases IN LIGHT OF THE PASSAGE OF FISA. So again, your argument is in conflict with the FISCR opinion.

How can that be? You can't have it both ways, Ticomaya--and neither can the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Appeals. The sentence you keep quoting from that decision is nonsensical--it amounts to a contradiction wrapped into an enigma.

If the President has constitutional authority--an authority that Congress cannot encroach upon; then the President's authority must be exclusive and Congress must be excluded from legislating on the subject. However, the FISA Court did not declare that FISA was unconstitutional. That means, if FISA is a constitutional enactment, then the President must faithfully execute the law as written. The President has NO AUTHORITY (inherent or otherwise) to override a constitutional congressional enactment by executive order.

You're basically telling us that Congress has the power to enact enforceable laws that can't be enforced. That makes no sense at all. No one can possibly make such an absurd argument and maintain a straight face.

If the president can ignore laws established by congress, what is there to check the power of the president? Isn't that the reason why our founding fathers established the executive, legislative, and judicial.

The US is not a kingdom.

Ticomaya wrote:

kuvasz wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

kuvasz: Next time why don't you save yourself some time and just post a link to Jack Balkin's blog entry?

oh, those stone casters who live in glass houses.

part of an earlier post, esp. the court transcript of the youngstown case came from that site, and it was referencing Youngstown specifically with executive branch allowances for torture i thought, not FISA.

actually the FISA tie-in was mostly from http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/12/inherent-authority-to-violate-federal.html

and oddly, i found almost verbatim commentary posts you have made here mysteriously appear on another site from which was gleaned additional data in a series of posts from glenn greenwald's site.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/

one of the series of essays on the issue anyway.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/bushs-unchecked-executive-power-v.html

so, you might also wish to post the reference links from which you get your own talking points.

Certainly not from a blog entry, already prepackaged so I didn't have to do any independent thinking.

don't worry, no one here has ever accused you of the latter, don't kid yourself.

I've read the case law and news reports. Other than that I've quoted from John Schmidt's oft cited article, and I'm pretty sure I quoted former DOJ attorney John Yoo.

I've never heard of Glen Greenwald, much less read anything he's written. This latest claim is as spurious as your earlier claim that my arguments were coming from someone you called "Assrocket with Powerline."

you can't read. I said "the likes of assrockett and other right wing blogs"

Oh I see. You weren't accusing me of plagerizing "assrocket," just "the likes of assrockett and other right wing blogs."

I've been a bit late coming back to the festivities here due to a sick dog and year end reports for clients, but your remarks again just go to show that you don't have a very high reading comprehension. if you honestly are not the "anonymous" poster on greenwald's site posting commentary, then you and he are getting your information from the same sources. but to which you infer as original thoughts on your part

Oh, hell ... so now I'm not even supposed to be plagiarizing Glen Greenwald, but "the" anonymous poster on his blog site I've never seen before? I looked at the link you provided and there are several postings by "Anonymous." The first anonymous poster submitted the following:

"I wish someone would give a copy to the President to read. Someone has to be able to enlighten him, before he makes this country into a police state. I find it ironic that the very freedoms he tells us that the terrorists hate us for are the ones he is taking away."

I trust you do not accuse me of stealing from that person, or gleaning it from the same source?

None of the others seem to apply either. You said "the" anonymous poster. I point that out to stave of a further accusation from you that I'm not comprehending what you are writing. Perhaps you could be more specific?


But I'll tell you what ... let's do this: You highlight the portions of the Glen Greenwald article that you think I used (which I've never seen before, and which appears to be arguing your side of the argument), and I'll do the same to the text in the Jack Balkin's blog entry(s) you copied.

so you both used unreferenced sources, wup de doo! and you will have to start with the link i cited because more came from that one than the one you cited.

Should be entertaining. You wanna go first? (I don't have time right now or I would.)

and actually, you never did rebutt justices black or jackson in Younstown so why don't you start first with the issue that was the purpose of the thread

I distinguished Youngstown in a prior post. Youngstown dealt with the issue of whether the President has the power to take possession of private property in order to keep labor disputes from stopping production. It did not deal with the President conducting warrantless searches for foreign intelligence.

The president doesn't have the constitutional authority to spy on his own citizens. Or are you claiming he does?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The president doesn't have the constitutional authority to spy on his own citizens. Or are you claiming he does?

Cycloptichorn

If someone in the US --- whether they be a citizen or not -- is an agent of a foreign power and is communicating with someone else in a foreign country, the US government can surveil that communication, sans warrant. That's what I'm claiming.

How can you tell if they are an agent of a foriegn power or not? Guess? Suspect? What about the inevitable errors?

As US civil rights are involved, how can there be no oversight committee?

Cycloptichorn

There were safeguards against errors. Bush actively and secretly removed the safeguards and didn't replace them with anything comprable, nor did he even seek to do so.

Without safeguards, there is no way to tell what information is being collected, where it was used, who it was given to. Definately not constitutional, an unregulated, unrestricted spying program with no oversight.

Cycloptichorn