America... Spying on Americans

Quote:

I'm not arguing that it is. It is unconstitutional to the extent it attempts to limit the President's authority to conduct warrantless searches for purposes of foreign intelligence. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent with that whatsoever.

Yes, there is. And it is this: without oversight, there is no way to tell whether the spying being done is domestic or foreign.

The FISA court is exactly that oversight, not a limit. In order to determine whether or not the gov't has the right to spy, the court must be there. That oversight is constitutionally mandated protection for American citzens. It is exactly what FISA was created for; and all you need is a warrant to get approval anyways! You are claiming that the legal purpose of FISA which requires a court is illegal when used for Foriegn intelligence purposes, but that's up to the FISA court to decide, not the Bush adminstration! You are claiming that FISA is entirely unconstitutional; they cannot even revue information to see if it appropriate or not.

FISA is law, not just a court which is there for convienence when the Bush admin wants to go to it.

Quote:

But where does it say that in the Constitution? Earlier in this thread you seemed to be of the opinion that the president could not "invoke some undefined inherent authority" to violate a federal law, because the Constitution did not say he could. Yet you admit the President is authroized to ignore a federal law by invoking an "express" authority. yet you have not pointed to where the Constitution says he can.

You are extrapolating a straw man. Congress would either not successfully pass a law which contradicts the constitution (which expressly grants certain powers to the president; there is no interpretation there) or the law would not successfully hold up in a supreme court challenge. You would have to change the constitution through a convention. I'm sure DL knows this. The constitution grants the president the powers to ignore changes to his express authority at the same time it grants that authority to him! Implied authority and powers are a whole 'nother matter.

On the other hand, we have a law which regulates the president's spying ability on domestic citizens; Bush seeks to do away with these regulations by fiat, which is illegal. Remove all oversight over who is being spied upon. This violates the Constitutionally correct FISA act, because there could be citizens spied upon for Domestic intelligence purposes; without the court, there is no way to tell, thus the purpose of the court. You can't just stop going to the court.

You have no idea what, or who, has been spied upon in the last few years. But I bet we will find some names and people who shouldn't be on there.

Congress consists of the entire Senate and the entire House of Representatives. If Bush told four people about his top secret, classified domestic spying program and those four people were required to keep their mouths shut, how is that advising CONGRESS?

CONGRESS--the entire representative legislative body of our government consisting of hundreds of representatives--was not advised

mysteryman, Bushie did not inform the intelligence committees or Congress. He cherry picked members to inform just as he cherrry picked intelligence he presented to Congress in the leadup to war in Iraq. You know that yet you choose deception just as Bushie does. Not a noble choice.

Let me ask you the questions I just asked Debra: When every President since Roosevelt conducted warrantless searches for purposes of foreign intelligence prior to FISA, did they do so pursuant to authority? If so, what authority?

blueflame1 wrote:

mysteryman, Bushie did not inform the intelligence committees or Congress. He cherry picked members to inform just as he cherrry picked intelligence he presented to Congress in the leadup to war in Iraq. You know that yet you choose deception just as Bushie does. Not a noble choice.

He has the right to "cherrypick" which members he informs.
As long as he informs them,he has fulfilled the law.

It's been open for interpretation for a long time now.

When you go to the airport you get searched. They have no warrant. Many office buildings and performance halls now search people with out warrants. ...

It's been open for interpretation for a long time now.

When you go to the airport you get searched. They have no warrant. Many office buildings and performance halls now search people with out warrants. the term "unreasonable" is also open for debate. I also do not see where international telephone calls are covered in that amendment...

It's been open for interpretation for a long time now.

When you go to the airport you get searched. They have no warrant. Many office buildings and performance halls now search people with out warrants. the term "unreasonable" is also open for debate. I also do not see where international telephone calls are covered in that amendment...

I think they are similar interpretations under the law. I believe being searched in an airport is far more personal than having an international telephone call to a terrorist monitored.

You also have a choice not to call people on the al Qaeda watch list. It shouldn't require a PhD to figure that out.

As to Tico's argument that the Congress cannot pass laws that regulate executive power, I would reference Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution where Congress is given the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." Once FISA was passed and signed into law by the president, it became law. The president is encroaching on the authority of Congress to make laws by enacting an executive order that is counter to it.