SOURCE
Authority for "Wiretapping"
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by OldRegular, Feb 3, 2006.
Page 2 of 4
-
Bush claims the constitutional power to conduct warrantless searches flows from his "commander-in-chief" powers under Article Two of the U.S. constitution. But even if Article Two gave him that power, the Fourth Amendment (which amended the Constitution) has taken any claim of legitimacy from that power.
The courts have and will continue to rule otherwise; our past, present, and future presidents have, do, and will continue to defend their inherent authority. -
That's true the courts will undoubtedly uphold a POTUS dictatorship no matter what the constitution says.
I still question whether the POTUS is legally commander in chief in absence of a formal declaration of war. -
poncho,
I still question whether the POTUS is legally commander in chief in absence of a formal declaration of war.
What in the text of the Constitution, or the history of its writing/ratification, makes you think otherwise? -
:D -
I would like to add that I don't have the answer to this question. But I'm pretty sure their are lawyers and judges out there who would quickly give the POTUS unlimited powers as we already know the depths of their corruption.
BTW I'm quite curious OR, what flavor are Dubya's boots anyway? He owns a ranch ya know, with cows.
No horses though he's scared to death of horses. Git along little doughie, git along.
[ February 06, 2006, 06:29 AM: Message edited by: poncho ] -
poncho,
BTW I'm quite curious OR, what flavor are Dubya's boots anyway? He owns a ranch ya know, with cows.
You know, come to think of it, the taste is quite pungent. But I've gotten used to it, licking them for so long.
Editing... -
Well, I guess I'm not still editing since I could not get back to my message for some reason.
What I meant to add, poncho, is a response that I sent to someone whom I met with a few months ago who was trying to recruit me back into the John Birch Society. We got into a discussion/debate about this very power and whether it is contingent on a declaration of war. His arguments centered around (1) the words "the President shall be Commander in Chief" and (2) the militia being called into actual service.
The section reads, as you probably know:
-
Daisy,
This is one of the problems that strict constructionists run into - sometimes rights conflict with one another.
Why is that specifically a problem for strict constructionists? If they conflict, they conflict, regardless of one's method of interpretation. It seems a more reliable method to search the Founders and history of the Constitution/relevant amendment to come up with a resolution. And such resolution would in any case be on firmer grounds by going back to such an originalist source than "whatever feels good" at the moment. -
I repeat the OP for those Bush Bashers who have either forgotten, not that they have short memories, or who can't answer the question.
"The Federal Government as established by the Constitution consists of three equal branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary.
Many on this Forum have complained about the NSA listening to terrorist electronic transmissions. Can some of you people tell me where the Constitution gives Congress the authority to grant or deny the Executive the right to listen to these terrorist electronic transmissions? -
From the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings today regarding the interceptions of terrorist commmunications it is obvious that two things were in play:
1. The Bush Hating democrats tried unsuccessfully to Bash Bush.
2. The Senate is obviously involved in a power struggle with the Executive.
It is obvious, as Attorney General Gonzales[sp] pointed out, that the President has the inherent Constitutional authority to intercept enemy communications. He does not need Congressional authority. -
Perhaps someone can refresh my memory but I don't recall any Congressional hearings when Clinton illegally bugged the home of Aldrich Ames?
-
Can some of you people tell me where the Constitution gives Congress the authority to grant or deny the Executive the right to listen to these terrorist electronic transmissions?Click to expand...
The constitution was written to protect us from the government not to protect the POTUS from congress.
If I am wrong Or, please show me where? -
I am by no means a legal expert, but how, in the past, have the courts interpreted the word "search?" Is it a "physical" search, as implied by the words I have highlighted?
Forth Amendment of the US Constitution
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. -
I believe that would be up left to the magistrate that would be petitioned to grant such a warrant EL.
Searches and Seizures Pursuant to Warrant Link -
Particularity .--''The requirement that warrants shall particularily describe the things to be seized makes general searches under them impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another. As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant.'' 111 This requirement thus acts to limit the scope of the search, inasmuch as the executing officers should be limited to looking in places where the described object could be expected to be found. 112Click to expand...
-
That seems to describe tangible "persons, places, or things", as opposed to something intangible, like non-written communications.
-
Information is a thing isn't it? It can be bought as in a book or college course, it can be stored as in ones mind or a pc hardrive or recorded and stored digitally over wire or through the air when it's passed from one to another, it can be passed on by speech electronics wires/signal and the written word. That makes it a thing that can be possesed by one and seized by another. Right?
-
A hard drive is certainly a thing, as is a book. I'm specifically addressing non-written communications. How, for example, can one seize a mind?
Page 2 of 4