Unconstitutional? Go figure!

[livendive 8]

The headline on CNN.com currently reads

Quote

A federal judge has ruled that the federal government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately.

The Bush administration violating the Constitution? The sad thing is I doubt anyone is surprised.

Edit to add text of article:

Quote

DETROIT, Michigan (AP) -- A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly taping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.

The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Lucky... 0]

Beat me to it . It must have been one of those whiny liberal activist judges cause everyone knows that wiretapping is cool

[lawrocket 3]

It doesn't take an activist judge to make these holdings.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,013]

Good news in terms of protecting the US Constitution from those who would redefine it in the face of their fear. Let's hope this decision leads to others that also affirm the protections the US Constitution provides.

[grue 1]

Whoops, seems you beat me to the post.

Yeah, it's certainly ironic that the only federal judge with a pair of balls is actually a woman. I'm honestly sending her a thank you card tomorrow.

cavete terrae.

[jdthomas 0]

do you think that just beasue some judge has ordered the bush administration to stop that they will? and how will we really ever know?
Joe

www.greenboxphotography.com

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

It doesn't take an activist judge to make these holdings.

That was sarcasm

[rushmc 23]

Go goggle the judge. She is a Carter apointee that has stepped in it before and has again now.

Ask this
Why did this get filed in Eastern Mich?
Why this judge?

The SC will have the final say on this juditial attempt to take power.......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[grue 1]

Quote

do you think that just beasue some judge has ordered the bush administration to stop that they will? and how will we really ever know?
Joe

By destroying the government and rebuilding it correctly:

National defense
Courts
Police
A few miscellaneous other functions

You start letting them stick their noses into every little god damned thing and then you lose control, just like we have.

cavete terrae.

[billvon 3,013]

>The SC will have the final say on this juditial attempt to take power.......

It's a sad day when a judge reaffirms the clear statements in the Constitution on the limitations of governmental power - and is called an "activist trying to take power."

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

do you think that just beasue some judge has ordered the bush administration to stop that they will? and how will we really ever know?
Joe

Course they won't stop, snakes on a plane do whatever they want. Oh wait, do I hear the chant of, "they all do it?"

Anyway, this ruling affects the admissibility of illegally gained statements, when admitted into court.

[rushmc 23]

Understanding the seperation of powers can make that clear to you bill.

Hatred of a leader closes the mind and eyes.

Did you care about this when Clinton did it?

Don't answer as I already know.

Oh, and I fully expect you to use the "Oh ya, bring up Clinton" tetoric again..........simply because you can not respond to it...........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[livendive 8]

Quote

The SC will have the final say on this juditial attempt to take power.......

"Judicial attempt to take power"?! Taking power would require that the President first had the power. Since when has he had the legitimate authority to ignore the following?

Quote

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.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 3,013]

>Understanding the seperation of powers can make that clear to you bill.

Judges interpret the Constitution. That's what happened here. Let me remind you of what we're talking about:

"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."

Today, a US judge basically said "Yep, still applies." In other words, the system worked.

>Did you care about this when Clinton did it?

Yes. It was an abuse there as well.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Understanding the seperation of powers can make that clear to you bill.

Judges interpret the Constitution. That's what happened here. Let me remind you of what we're talking about:

"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."

Today, a US judge basically said "Yep, still applies." In other words, the system worked.

>Did you care about this when Clinton did it?

Yes. It was an abuse there as well.

You bring up one side of the seperation of powers but not the other. Wonder why?

What about the clause used by the Executive Branch in this debate?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

refer to my post back to bill..Same applies to your post.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,013]

>You bring up one side of the seperation of powers but not the other. Wonder why?

Uh, there are THREE parts to the separation of powers.

A little quiz for you:

Which branch of the government, according to the constitution, has the power to declare war?

Which branch of the government, according to the constitution, decides on the legality of what the other two branches do?

Which branch of the government, according to the constitution, has the power to organize and arm the national guard?

>What about the clause used by the Executive Branch in this debate?

And which clause would that be?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Understanding the seperation of powers can make that clear to you bill.

it should make it clear to you, rush, as should understanding the limitation of powers. The 4th Amendment provides that the government cannot make unreasonable searches and seizures of people homes, papers, effects, and that no warrants shall be issued without probable cause.

So, when the executive starts performing unreasonable searches without warrants, should we sit back and say, "Separation of Powers?" No. The Courts say, "Knock it off."

You are forgetting, I believe, that while there is a "separation of powers" there is also a system of "checks and balances" so that Presidents can't go doing shit like this "unchecked."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jdthomas 0]

So can the president or any other person of 'power" be arrested if they carry out illegal wiretaps?
And if so then why are there no arrest?

I don't know the legal implications of all of this and I would like to understad it better.
Joe

www.greenboxphotography.com

[craddock 0]

Could you please capitalize the B in Bill? It is driving me nuts.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[hairyjuan 0]

1. Congress

2. Supreme
court

3. None. the document refers to the Militia. The National Guard is a Federal Military force occupying the 50 Sovereign Republics(Art 4. Sec 4). Art.1 Sec 8 Par 11- To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a Longer Term than two Years;...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and Disciplining the Militia,... reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, ...

Martial Law and Military Government by Major General Birkhimer states that the "Reconstruction Act of 1870 placed the Country under Martial Law"

"stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamn piece of paper"-George W.

if you are real serious about life liberty, etc... the first two attachments are fromwww.barefootsworld.net where you can obtain a free copy of the 'anti-federalist papers', the origin of life, liberty, etc.
Also, the army's definition of republic and democracy.

the last one is from www.hermes-press.com

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[lawrocket 3]

There are certain privileges associated with it. But, in practicality, the courts can only make him stop. Maybe he can be held in contempt for refusing to stop it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

jUST following the way he uses his name oN this sITE.

No disrespect meant in any way.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

the federal government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional

Liberals and foreigners are rejoicing alongside the Founding Fathers.

Caution, the cognitive dissonance may cause headache, shortness of breath, high blood pressure, and trolling!

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[likearock 2]

Quote

There are certain privileges associated with it. But, in practicality, the courts can only make him stop. Maybe he can be held in contempt for refusing to stop it.

However, Congress could impeach him for it if they were so inclined. That's part of checks and balances also.

I'm speaking theoretically because obviously a Republican Congress won't do that and even a Democratic Congress might have serious reservations given the backlash during the Clinton debacle.

An interesting question is whether they could use the threat of impeachment in order to force him to disclose the extent of the unwarranted surveillance.