Is this accurate?
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 3, 2006 21:33
VIEWED: 7022
PAGE 3 of 6
Forget FISA what about the 5th Ammendment?
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."
Why are President's Clinton's actions not a "power grab" but President Bush's are?
-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."
---Napoleon Bonaparte
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
This does seem to be very disturbing.
The idea that the president can ignore laws at will is disturbing.
If this is a provision of presidential power that is outlined in the constitution, we may need to revisit it.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
Who do you think is going to be the next president!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Um... isn't that the Fourth Amendment? The Fifth Amendment protects people from self-incrimination ie "pleading the Fifth".
Forget FISA what about the 5th Ammendment?
And saying "Forget FISA..." is like saying "Forget the law...". That's what the President does too.
I was going to add to my previous post but couldn't access the site. What I was going to say is that I don't care for Clintons' hairsplitting either. Administrations should err on the side of privacy. But at least Clinton's snooping was focused... apparently more than three thousand people have been investigated under National Security Letters and an unknown number (probably thousands, given the admitted number) have been wiretapped w/o a warrant. According to ACLU, some of the groups that are on the "security risk" list include Quakers and a group of anti-war grandmas.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just because the Legislative Branch passes a law which attempts to control what the Executive Branch can do, That does not make that law Constitutional, or the Executive Branch's disregarding it Unconstitutional. The powers of the Executive Branch are enumerated in the Constitution itself, and can only be changed by amending it, such as the 22nd amendment, limiting presidential terms in office.
If there's a question about the constitutionality of laws impacting the Executive, they should be resolved by the Judiciary - the Supreme Court. About the only way they can get there is for the Executive to disregard a law passed by the Legislature on the grounds of Executive privilege, and for it to work its way up through the courts.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Apparently the question of warrantless searches has been run up the flagpole before, all the way up thru the Supreme Court. The GW Bush admin argued that warrantless wiretapping was implicit in the Authorization of Use of Force. (Seems like a stretch to me since wiretapping wasn't even mentioned). There are a lot of ins and outs to the whole issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy
Quote:
In Kieth, the Supreme Court unanimously and unequivocally held that, even in national security investigations, the President had no constitutional authority to conduct electronic surveillance of American citizens on American soil without a judicially issued search warrant based on a finding of probable cause.
http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2006/01/bushs_spy_progr.html
And focusing on wiretaps doesn't negate the fact that Bush has flouted many laws. Signing a bill not passed by both House and Senate was breathtaking, but neither it nor wiretaps are the only issue. The melange of broken laws is testament to Bush's disregad for the Constitution, which he reportedly called called "that godd*mned piece of paper". www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_7779.shtml
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signym,
Whoops, you are right it's the 4th ammendment, sorry for the typo.
When I say "forget FISA" I point to an ammendment in the Bill of Rights which I think is a great deal more authoritative than a law passed by Congress a couple of decades ago. So your characterization that it,
Quote:isn't a very applicable one if you ask me.
"...is like saying "Forget the law..."
-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."
---Napoleon Bonaparte
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
In Kieth, the Supreme Court unanimously and unequivocally held that, even in national security investigations, the President had no constitutional authority to conduct electronic surveillance of American citizens on American soil without a judicially issued search warrant based on a finding of probable cause.
http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2006/01/bushs_spy_progr.html
Later in the same article:
Quote:
Now, one might think that the Court’s unanimous opinion in Keith resolved the issue of the Bush spy program, but it does not, because the Court put aside, as not before it, the constitutionality of government surveillance of “foreign powers or their agents.” Although the reasoning of Keith would seem to apply to foreign as well as domestic threats to the national security, at least insofar as the surveillance involves wiretapping American citizens within the United States, Keith left the question unresolved. Thus, it is possible to argue, even after Keith, that Bush’s spy program, which purportedly is directed at those who communicate with foreign-based terrorists or terrorist organizations, is not necessarily prohibited by established Supreme Court precedent.
Although the writer states "The Court in Kieth left open the precise application of the Fourth Amendment to foreign intelligence activities, but the logic of the opinion leaves little doubt that the Bush spy program violates the Fourth Amendment.", that's his opinion, not the Supreme Court's. Get it to the Court, and we'll know.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Even further in the article the author basically refutes the intepretation that spying on foreign agents is substantially different from spying on citizens where they may overlap because of- among other reasons- lack of internal controls over who is defined as a foreign agent. He goes on to say that no court has ever approved warrantless searches of American citizens. My exerpt - unlike yours- was entirely reflective of the author's point.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, I believe the Consitution is the more authoritative document. And my admittedly unlawyerly reading of the Constitution tells me that warrantless searches are ... well, Unconsitutional. But Presidents more than any other branch chip away at the Constitution, which is why this current President's unparalleled use of signing statements is so troubling. And now... back to work for me.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Except for Clinton’s "unparalleled" use of warrantless intrusive searches which you dismiss as “legal.”
Originally posted by SignyM:
But Presidents more than any other branch chip away at the Constitution, which is why this current President's unparalleled use of signing statements is so troubling. And now... back to work for me.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME