America... Spying on Americans

Yes, parados! And he can ignore it even if the lawyer says its Constitutional. Hell, he can ignore it without consulting a lawyer.

Remember that Bush's highest and chief responsibility is to uphold the laws of the United States of America, embodied in our Constitution.

He took an oath to do so! The oath said nothing about defending from terrorism.

Cycloptichorn

How will it be tested? Since there is no aggrieved party because the abuse is secret who can file suit? What court will rule on constitutionality without an actual case?

If the President keeps it secret and doesn't inform the legislature of the details how can they have any oversight?

Quote:

Yes, parados! And he can ignore it even if the lawyer says its Constitutional. Hell, he can ignore it without consulting a lawyer.

Of course he can; but you agree he would be breaking the law by doing so.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Remember that Bush's highest and chief responsibility is to uphold the laws of the United States of America, embodied in our Constitution.

He took an oath to do so! The oath said nothing about defending from terrorism.

Cycloptichorn

Are you saying the President only has those powers given to him by his oath? That he can only do those things articulated in the oath? Or that the oath gives him any powers whatsoever?

Are you saying you do not believe the President has the power to defend against terrorism given to him as part of his Article II commander in chief powers?

Do you think we need a Constitutional Amendment in order to give the President the ability to defend our country from terrorists?

Article. II.

Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"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."

Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section. 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section. 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

If it was Constitutional, and he broke it, yes. In this particular matter, the FISCR would appear to believe he did not.

parados wrote:

How will it be tested? Since there is no aggrieved party because the abuse is secret who can file suit? What court will rule on constitutionality without an actual case?

There's no "aggrieved party"? Then what's your beef?

Quote:

If the President keeps it secret and doesn't inform the legislature of the details how can they have any oversight?

Is that what happened in the fantasyland you live in?

Cyclo,
You said..."He took an oath to do so! The oath said nothing about defending from terrorism."

Those are your words,nobody else's.

So,are you saying that he doesnt have the power?
Are you saying that the Constitution itself,in the National Archives,must be attacked BEFORE he can do anythting to defend it?

That is what you said.Now,do you stand by that statement?

This really isn't all that complicated.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This really isn't all that complicated.

Cycloptichorn

I wouldn't be so sure :wink:

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Remember that Bush's highest and chief responsibility is to uphold the laws of the United States of America, embodied in our Constitution.

He took an oath to do so! The oath said nothing about defending from terrorism.

Cycloptichorn

Are you saying the President only has those powers given to him by his oath? That he can only do those things articulated in the oath? Or that the oath gives him any powers whatsoever?

Are you saying you do not believe the President has the power to defend against terrorism given to him as part of his Article II commander in chief powers?

Do you think we need a Constitutional Amendment in order to give the President the ability to defend our country from terrorists?

I am saying that the president's highest and chief responsibility is to defend the laws of the USA as embodied in the Constitution. That's what the words highest and chief mean. I never said that he didn't have implied or implicit powers, nor any other responsibilities.

The president may have rights, or inherent powers, but he only took one oath: to defend the laws of the USA as embodied in the Constitution. I know an oath means nothing to you, but it is a sacred promise that he swore to uphold, and he has failed to do so.

I'd like to return to the point of your agreeing with my conclusion that Bush broke the law, in absence of any ruling stating that said law was unconstitutional. Do you deny this?

on preview: I couldn't find the section in article 2 of the constitution that allows Bush to break the law, for any reason. Can you point it out to me?

The fact that the Prez is the CIC does not give him the power to break the law with impunity, sorry.

But the Constitution DOES state the the ONLY oath the president has to take, an OATH, is to uphold the constitution. This is without a doubt his primary responsibility, and he has failed in doing so.

Quote:

There's no "aggrieved party"? Then what's your beef?

Nice diversion but doesn't answer your statement of "It WILL be tested."

Quote:

Quote:

If the President keeps it secret and doesn't inform the legislature of the details how can they have any oversight?

Is that what happened in the fantasyland you live in?

You are the one claiming that a President can claim a law is unconstitutional and just ignore it.

In the matter at hand, he advised Congress.

Ticomaya wrote:

In the matter at hand, he advised Congress.

No, he did not advise Congress.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Remember that Bush's highest and chief responsibility is to uphold the laws of the United States of America, embodied in our Constitution.

He took an oath to do so! The oath said nothing about defending from terrorism.

Cycloptichorn

Are you saying the President only has those powers given to him by his oath? That he can only do those things articulated in the oath? Or that the oath gives him any powers whatsoever?

Are you saying you do not believe the President has the power to defend against terrorism given to him as part of his Article II commander in chief powers?

Do you think we need a Constitutional Amendment in order to give the President the ability to defend our country from terrorists?

I am saying that the president's highest and chief responsibility is to defend the laws of the USA as embodied in the Constitution. That's what the words highest and chief mean. I never said that he didn't have implied or implicit powers, nor any other responsibilities.

You seem to put a lot of stock in the oath, which is why I asked you whether you consider him to have any authority outside of that granted to him by his oath.

I also wanted to find out if you thought the oath granted him any powers whatsoever.

And you have done so. The oath is not what grants him the powers, the Constitution grants him the powers.

Quote:

The president may have rights, or inherent powers, but he only took one oath: to defend the laws of the USA as embodied in the Constitution. I know an oath means nothing to you, but it is a sacred promise that he swore to uphold, and he has failed to do so.

Since you believe an oath means nothing to me, I'd like for you to explain that remark. I am on record at A2K for condemning former President Clinton for his lying despite having taken an oath to testify truthfully. (Remember that oath? Did that oath "mean nothing" to you?)

I would like to know what has caused you to conclude "an oath means nothing" to me. Or were you just talking out of your a$$?

It seems rather clear that he has violated his oath. We can discuss whether or not you feel the president should be bound by FISA; we can discuss whether you think FISA is a good law or not; but the fact remains that FISA is established law, and until it is declared unconstitutional by the SC the president does not have the right to break it, for any reason. This is not to say that he cannot do so, but that he will have to face the same kind of punishment that any other lawbreaker would for breaking the law. The fact that some feel the law should not limit his authority is immaterial.

You're one of the more intelligent posters here, this should be pretty clear to you! That's why I stated that an oath apparently means nothing to you. I would understand if Bush said 'I knew it was on shaky ground, but after 9/11, it needed doing, so I did it. I take responsibility.' But he is incapable of taking responsibility for his actions, and instead claims he did nothing wrong.

Please take no personal offense.

Quote:

I'd like to return to the point of your agreeing with my conclusion that Bush broke the law, in absence of any ruling stating that said law was unconstitutional. Do you deny this?

Do I deny what? I have a sense for what you might be trying to ask, but would you please try and state your question clearly?

Do you deny that, until FISA has been ruled unconstitutional, then Bush does not have the authority to blatantly ignore FISA? That he would be both breaking the law and violating his oath of office?

Quote:

on preview: I couldn't find the section in article 2 of the constitution that allows Bush to break the law, for any reason. Can you point it out to me?

I, too, don't find any section in the Constitution that allows him to ignore any laws, for any reason. Do you conclude he cannot do so?

Is that why you have concluded he cannot defend our country against terrorism .... because it isn't listed in the Constitution?

This is a false argument. It is not neccessary to break the law to protect our country from terrorism. Bush's highest priority should be to uphold the law. The only ones arguing that it is neccessary are the Bushies. Therefore, it is not my conclusion whatsoever that Bush cannot defend against terrorism because it isn't listed in the constitution; just that he cannot break the law.

Quote:

The fact that the Prez is the CIC does not give him the power to break the law with impunity, sorry.

Is someone suggesting it does?

It would appear so. Earlier, you mentioned the powers granted in Article 2. Why did you do so, if not to imply that some section of this article grants the Prez. powers? The only applicable section that I found that MIGHT apply was the war powers. Can you help me out with what you were talking about?

Quote:

But the Constitution DOES state the the ONLY oath the president has to take, an OATH, is to uphold the constitution. This is without a doubt his primary responsibility, and he has failed in doing so.

I failed to see where in the Constitution it says that is his primary responsibility.

It would seem to me that the fact that only one of the President's responsibilities requires an oath, than that responsibility is the primary responsibility. Otherwise the oath would include the primary responsibility, wouldn't it? Why make the president take an oath for his secondary responsibilities, but not his primary ones? Logic dictates, that given the seperation of powers in our Democratic system, the primary duty of the Executive is to uphold the laws of the nation.

Quote:

In any event, assuming a law is unconstitutional, please explain how following that unconstitutional law furthers what you believe to be a President's primary responsibility of upholding the Constitution.

Why assume the law is unconstitutional? There is no reason to do so. If the law was found to be unconstitutional, then there hardly is an issue, is there? I don't believe that is the case here, and legally, it most certainly is not the case.

An excellent discussion, thanks.

Cycloptichorn