Slashdot Mirror

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."

        --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

http://www.landmarkcases.org/marbury/jefferson.html

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."

In other words, it isn't very hard for 5 lawyers to screw things up for everyone!

http://www.landmarkcases.org/nixon/nixonview.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8

Because anyone who wasn't Bogarting joints in civics class knows that the Executive branch (not "the government") has the authority to enforce the laws that are created by various levels of legislature. The Executive is not a king, does not have the authority to tell anyone to break any law for any reason, and it does not become legal when the President does it.

Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse for We, the People, so why should it be an excuse for telecos who have legions of lawyers on hand to advise them? All of those telcos could and should have told the NSA to go blow goats. You know, like QWest did.

Or did you forget about Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, and, most notably, Richard Nixon?

Well I hope he heard it. He said it and believed it. As our sitting president does today.

When the president does it, it's not illegal.

President Bush said he had the Beatles on his iPod, when there was no legal way to get them on there.

"Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."

http://www.landmarkcases.org/nixon/nixonview.html

"Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."

He has precedence* on his side.

*get it?

"Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."

The modern GOP (by that I mean since Eisenhower, and Ike wasn't even truly a Republican. He was apolitical -- as the entire military was up until Reagan -- and then ended with his Presidential tenure with the infamous warning of the Military-Industrial Complex. I'd like to see any Republican give such a speech today.) has a long history of dirty tricks, from the Watergate break in, all the way to today. In the 2002 election the GOP jammed the Democratic phone banks in New Hampshire. People went to jail because of that. Race baiting ads as part of their "southern strategy". Challenging legal voters based on bogus "felon lists." Challenging voters to present photo id when it's not a requirement. Informing voters in predominately black neighborhoods that the election was either postponed, or directing them to the wrong precincts. Frankly it's not surprising. The same ones that were running the party back then are the same ones running the party now. Total contempt for democracy. Macavelli would be proud.

No. Democrats don't do these sort of things.. Arguably, because liberals are "too pussy" to cheat, and "too naive" and believe in fair elections.

There was a time when the "Vote Facist for Law and Order" bumper stickers were funny. Now the seem just a bit too truthful.

--
"When the president does it that means that it is not illegal."
-- Richard Nixon, May 19, 1977 interview with Robert Frost

A few months ago I would have agreed with you. That was before I started learning the recent history.

It was after Nixon's political demise that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others who came to be called Neo-cons stared to look for ways to increase the power of the presidency. Remember, it was Nixon who said that anything the president does it legal, because it is the president who is doing it. In other words, the president is above the law. Since then, they have slowly been setting the stage for this very day.

We had Reagan, who destroyed the unions and set up the boogeyman of the welfare queen, to destroy the social safety net and job security of the middle class. Look where we are now -- Productivity is the highest its been in fifty years, yet people are making less money, working more hours, with less benefits. Prices are up, savings is at an all-time low, and credit card debt at a high. People can't worry about politics -- they are too busy working. Have a problem with this? Shut up with your class warfare and get back to work.

Then came Bush Sr., who was somewhat stymied by a democratic congress and a single term. Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts were hampered by Republicans charging about gays in the military and Lewinsky. I assume I don't need to tell you about Bush.

So if you look at who the major players are behind the scenes in the Regan and both Bush presidencies, you will find Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and assorted other Neo-cons who wanted to strengthen the presidency after Nixon's impeachment. Scary.

"Not even Richard Nixon went around claiming that he was just "above the law because he says so" but apparently these people think that it is a valid legal principle."

Actually, Richard Nixon *did* believe that the president's actions were always legal, by definition:

FROST: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.

NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.

FROST: By definition.

NIXON: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.

the school has no right to search a student's piece of property.

The Supremes say otherwise, at least in the case of the purse of a drug-dealing student who made the mistake of getting caught smoking. See TLO vs. New Jersey.

I see no problem with digging through cell phone call records and old text messages, as long as there's reasonable suspicion. In the TLO case, for example, a girl caught smoking denied it, but a search of her purse quickly revealed not only smokes, but rolling papers, pot, and a list of students who owed her money (this case did predate the Notorious BIG: "you think a crackhead paying you back, shit forget it").

From the majority opinion:

"The warrant requirement, in particular, is unsuited to the school environment: requiring a teacher to obtain a warrant before searching a child suspected of an infraction of school rules (or of the criminal law) would unduly interfere with the maintenance of the swift and informal disciplinary procedures needed in the schools"

That doesn't sound terribly unreasonable, especially if a suspension from school is the only punishment handed down for dealing drugs, since presumably evidence acquired in this manner wouldn't make it past pre-trial motions.

Tricky Dick has taught him well. Direct quote, "Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal." And the voters agree.

What you fail to see is that the wiretaps *are* illegal...

"Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.".

The president makes the laws. Therefore, anything he deems to be legal is legal.

You're wrong.

http://www.landmarkcases.org/landmarkframe_commerc e.html

The clause was usurped by FDR when he stacked the SCOTUS to keep the New Deal alive. It is too bad you had to hide behind AC as I have about 400 letters and speeches during the debate on the Constitution dealing with Congress' powers being explicitly limitee by the rights of the Independent States.

Thousands of cases before FDR stacked the SCOTUS to keep his tyrannical New Deal intact:

http://www.landmarkcases.org/landmarkframe_commerc e.html

The latter, restrictive operation of the clause was long the more important one from the point of view of the constitutional lawyer. Of the approximately 1400 cases which reached the Supreme Court under the clause prior to 1900, the overwhelming proportion stemmed from state legislation.578 The result was that, generally, the guiding lines in construction of the clause were initially laid down in the context of curbing state power rather than in that of its operation as a source of national power. The consequence of this historical progression was that the word ''commerce'' came to dominate the clause while the word ''regulate'' remained in the background.

As is recounted below, prior to reconsideration of the federal commerce power in the 1930s, the Court in effect followed a doctrine of ''dual federalism,'' under which Congress' power to regulate much activity depended on whether it had a ''direct'' rather than an ''indirect'' effect on interstate commerce.616 When the restrictive interpretation was swept away during and after the New Deal, the question of federalism limits respecting congressional regulation of private activities became moot. However, the States did in a number of instances engage in commercial activities that would be regulated by federal legislation if the enterprise were privately owned; the Court easily sustained application of federal law to these state proprietary activities.617 However, as Congress began to extend regulation to state governmental activities, the judicial response was inconsistent and wavering.618 While the Court may shift again to constrain federal power on federalism grounds, at the present time the rule is that Congress lacks authority under the commerce clause to regulate the States as States in some circumstances, when the federal statutory provisions reach only the States and do not bring the States under laws of general applicability.619

I believe Justice Marshal through it all to hell.

Hmm...wasn't there another president who got in trouble for spying on other americans? Watershed...waterfall...waterbed...definitely water-something...

Oh, please! We all know, "...when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."

Odd. I don't see that expansion anywhere in the Constitution. Are you making that up?

No, the Supreme Court has. See http://www.landmarkcases.org/gibbons/power.html, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_clause, or just google for "Interstate Commerce Clause Expansion".

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that just about anything that has to do with interstate commerce - even by the most contorted logic - counts as something that Congress can legislate under the commerce clause.

The constitution is filled with implied rights and powers. In McCulloch v. Maryland, the supreme court ruled that even though the constitution did not explicitly say that the national government could create a bank, it was implied that they have that power.

One of the great strenghts and possibly weaknesses of our constituion is that it is constantly open to interpretation in order to adjust to changing times.

Buying a President is easier, I admit. Just give him a "campaign contribution". But so you get your favorite judge on the bench. So what? One they have that lifetime tenure, federal judges tend to quickly develop a nasty sense of independence.

Consider Richard Nixon. He managed to appoint no less than 4 justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Not one of those justices voted in his favor when his most important case came in front of them.

If you have any actual evidence that Microsoft fixed any of its cases, let's see it. Otherwise, spare us your glib ignorance.

Couldn't Mr. Hawash write a letter to the Supreme Court asking for relief? Or at least to the Attorney general's office! I mean, there is no instructions available as to what a person should do if held under those circumstances. Are they even allowed to send letters to friends/family? Isn't it easy to overturn these kinds of draconian laws if your done wrong by them, sort of like the Gideon Vs Wainwright (1963) case? IT might take time, and Mr. Hawash may have to spend a great deal more time in prison without due process, or being party to his lawyer, and lack of "innocent until proven guilty", as set forth in the bill of rights. Indeed the founders wanted to prevent this type of maneuver by the British at the time of the revolution. It is utterly sad that we have come full circle to become the tyrants we once spilt blood to reject. I guess 300 hundred years does that to the collective memory of a nation. A person should have the right to travel where they want, associate with anybody they wish, and conduct themselves in a militia if they so choose. These are the things that the Bill of rights initially sough to protect. Would Benjamin Franklin have been arrested as a terrorist if he were alive today! Still, I have a hard time believing this Mr. Hawash was even participating in the alleged activities he is believed to be held for. Indeed, the government is keeping this a big secret! If this were in a public court we could all know the truth, but the secret police doesn't have to obey the laws. Oh wait, that's right! WE allowed them to have the law changed in the knee-jerk reaction of a law known as the "Patriot Act", signed by the Retard... err... president of the United States of America, Mr. George W. Bush! Like Mr. Bush suggested/insinuated to the Iraqi' public durring one of his televised speeches to them, the situation of a tyranical leader could be solved with one bullet. I leave that last sentence to your own interpretation. I feel sorry for him being the guy that was in office durring the 9/11 fiasco, and I feel even sadder for the people under his rule, including myself. If this keeps going, the Chinies might endup having more freedom that the folks inthe USA.

You did have rights, but they were attenuated. There is a Supreme Court decision called Tinker that you might check out, concerning a children protesting the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school.

The poster is also mistaken to say free speech rights never apply on private property; there are limited exceptions for shopping malls and union organizing.

justified under the Commerce Clause. For instance see Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States et al.