Since I'm only starting law school this fall, the limit to which I can respond is to your issue with the court. Congress cannot limit the power of the Supreme Court, whose powers as a coequal branch are found in Article III. In Article I, Section 8, Congress has the power to "constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court." This means that courts underneath the Supreme Court, such as the Federal Court of Appeals, are creations of Congress and thus can have their jurisdiction messed with. This is a big difference from what you implied.
That's a negative. The court rulings specifically differentiate between domestic security threats (for example, an armed group of white supremacists in, say, Michigan), and foreign security threats. It doesn't matter if the operations or personel are in the United States during the surveillance, what matters is the nature of the threat. You're setting up a straw man that isn't even valid. If it comes out that during this program, the NSA was tapping one of Michael Moore's pizza orders, then that's a whole different story.
As for the act, the only method by which Congress could change the powers that the constitution grants to the executive branch is through an amendment to the constitution, which requires quite a bit more scruitiny and acceptance than a simple act. There is a measurable difference.
Actually, this is the point of identifying al Qaeda as a foreign organization, which I think you would have a difficult time arguing against. Not only were the intercepts for the purpose of gaining intelligence regarding this foreign organization, the calls were international on top of this, indicating conversations with members of al Qaeda outside of the country. You didn't actually read the article I linked, did you. Let me show you some excerpts so you don't have to spend the effort (article quoted within brackets):
[In 1980, the Fourth Circuit decided United States v. Truong, another criminal prosecution that arose out of the defendant's spying on behalf of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The case squarely presented the issue of the executive branch's inherent power to conduct warrantless surveillance for national security purposes:
The defendants raise a substantial challenge to their convictions by arguing that the surveillance conducted by the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment and that all the evidence uncovered through that surveillance must consequently be suppressed. As has been stated, the government did not seek a warrant for the eavesdropping on Truong's phone conversations or the bugging of his apartment. Instead, it relied upon a "foreign intelligence" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. In the area of foreign intelligence, the government contends, the President may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs.
The court agreed with the government's position:
For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], "unduly frustrate" the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations.
The court held that warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes are constitutional, as long as the "object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agent or collaborators," and the search is conducted "primarily" for foreign intelligence reasons.]
From later in the article:
[Finally, in 2002, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review decided Sealed Case No. 02-001. This case arose out of a provision of the Patriot Act that was intended to break down the "wall" between law enforcement and intelligence gathering. The Patriot Act modified Truong's "primary purpose" test by providing that surveillance under FISA was proper if intelligence gathering was one "significant" purpose of the intercept. In the course of discussing the constitutional underpinnings (or lack thereof) of the Truong test, the court wrote:
The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power. The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President's power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government's contention that FISA searches are constit
The basic premise of the argument is that there have been many court cases that have affirmed the president's right, derived from his preeminance in foreign affairs given to him in Article 2 of the constitution, to use electronic surveillance, even domestic, without a warrant for the explicit purposes of gathering foreign intelligence. Despite having domestic operatives, there is simply no question that al Qaeda is a foreign organization.
The question has centered around whether or not FISA now requires him to get a warrant for such intelligence gathering. The authors argue, successfully in my opinion, that a legislative act, passed by Congress, CANNOT limit the constitutionally derived powers granted to the executive branch. DO NOT FORGET!!! Congress is a COEQUAL branch of government. It cannot limit or take away the president's constitutional powers by legislative act no more than the president can limit congress' powers by executive order. In short, the NSA program, defined in the narrow terms that it has been, is completely legal.
Btw, yes I admit the linked post is a conservative blog; the authors don't try to hide that. It fails to change the legal analysis.
That actually is somewhat accurate. The establishment clause was intended to keep the United States free of an official religion, with the founders specifically looking at the Church of England as an example. The purpose of the clause was to keep the government from interfering with religion. What's interesting about this is that the French have an even more explicit separate of church and state. However, the purpose of the French separation was to keep religious groups, the Catholic Church in particular from interfering in secular, governmental matters. The American model draws from a fear of government, while the French model draws from a fear of organized religion.
I'm thinking back to all of the many slashdot stories I've read over the years...and this could flat out be the absolute nerdiest thing I've ever read. Wow.
Actually, the National Institute of Health is the federal agency that assigns the funding in question. The NIH is part of the Department of Health and Human services, which is part of the executive branch, which the president is the head of. There's your constitutional basis.
The only problem with such an idea is that any person who comes up with a cure for AIDS is almost surely doing so with the financial backing of a large corporation or a research university. Modern medical research equipment is a bit beyond a setup in one's basement....you'd have to reward the corporation or institute that provided the funding for such research as well as the person or team that found the actual cure.
You may not agree with what the man says, but when the Canadaian government starts fining people for essentially not being "nice," particularly in the private context of when those remarks were made, those are some serious limits on freedom of speech. And when even private, noncommercial speech is limited such as in this context, you can bet that you would find such speech limited in the press as well.
Furthermore, it's starting to look like it was Saddam and the UN's own fault that people in his country may have been dying "because" of sanctions. The Oil-for-Food program that was supposed to allow for the wellbeing of Iraqi citizens while maintaining sanctions on things we didn't want Saddam to get his hands on is turning out to have been the most corrupt aid program in history, with billions having been skimmed off the top. The money apparently went to many places, all of them interesting: UN officials including the one running the program, politicians and countries that ended up being opposed to the war in 2003, Saddam himself. With this coming to light, I am frankly quite happy that we "went it alone," without the UN or France or Russia.
Here's a couple of links to get started on this story, here and here .
There are many people working very hard to bury this seemingly immense scandal, and this could look like an irreprocable big stain on the organization that those such as John Kerry want to "legitimize" the government in Iraq.
Actually, while this is probably unknown around Slashdot, a group can damn well fix prices if they want, it's completely legal. That is not what makes them a monopoly. The key thing that identifies a company or group of companies as a monopoly is if they use their power and standing to prevent others from entering that market. Honestly, with the prevelence of independent record companies, even though they are smaller, I really don't think you would be able to prove in court that the large companies constitute a monopoly. The large companies simply are not doing anything to prevent an independent publisher from entering the industry.
Are you serious? I didn't realize that NASA already had planned all this stuff out and was beginning production on components for these missions all in this calendar year. Please. No one is building anything for these missions for years. This reeks of the same conspiracy theories that surround anything that even has part of the word "Halliburton" in it. I'm sorry to sound condescending, but your good friend seems to me just to be an average Bush hater.
Perhaps this is offtopic, but what about Walmart makes you think what they sell in their stores lacks quality? They sell name brand stuff right alongside their own brands, both at prices lower than in most stores. Their ability to sell at cheap prices arises mainly from their absolutely unprecedented purchasing power; they can buy things on a bulk scale the likes of which no one has seen before. Combine that with a business model that makes very little profit per item sold (again their strategy is to sell in bulk), and you have one of the most sucessful businesses in history. You may knock it, but there is a reason that if you look at a Walmart parking lot, you may see a brand new BMW parked next to a used Hyundai. (And for those of you who would claim that their "low wages" are the entire reason for Walmart's success, I happen to know for a fact that their wages are competitive with many other jobs of that skill level, and yet Walmart succeeds while K-Mart is folding.)
I completely disagree. While some might argue that the Pentagon was a "legitimate military target," you will never convince me that using an airliner filled with civilians as your delivery method is not terrorism.
How is that an abuse? To me, that sounds like Wal-Mart decided to push the Buy American ideal when it was profitable for them, and then switched to imported products when it was clear to them that it would increase profits. That's called good business. A company's most important responsibility is to its investors and its bottom line. That's the whole freakin point of being IN business. If you don't like Wal-Mart and how they conduct their business then you are free to purchase ANYTHING they sell somewhere else, perhaps at a higher or lower price.
A major problem that is on the horizon is the Streamlined Sales Tax. This is something that many states want attached to any internet sales tax ban, and is receiving widespread support in Congress. It is, quite simply, a way around the ban. The idea is to enforce the tax that the parent poster talked about, where a customer is supposed to keep track of the tax he/she pays on items they buy from out of state. Many states have these laws on the books, but they're next to impossible to enforce. What the Steamlined Sales Tax will do is to force businesses to keep track of the tax FOR you. How do they keep track of it? By charging you the tax in the first place. This is another step to the holy grail for (notoriously out of control budget raising) states, a national sales tax. Believe me when I say that there is nothing a governor in New York would love more than to tax a citizen in California. The scary thing is, we're headed right in that direction.
While I'm not sure if you are correct or not about the revelation before the Gulf War, the major difference between these two planes is that the F-117 is an operational aircraft intended for actual combat use...this is merely a prototype that was used to test a new technology that can now be adapted for and applied to operational aircraft down the road.
Just because you haven't been provided with a service doesn't give you the right to illegially obtain it through other means. I'd write more but that's pretty much my entire point.
This "new" history? When the hell in history did any and every person in a society have a voice? And if you say ancient Greece, I'll beat you over the head with a book titled "History they teach you after High School." You don't have a voice because everyone having an equal voice (ie being able to propose bills and block others) would be such an inefficient government it would be laughable. You could forget about countries, you would need the world to be divided up into communities and governments about the size of Minerva, NY (pop: inconsequential) to get anything done, and even then you would have Mike G. Whitesupremecist messing stuff up every other day. There's a reason you don't have a voice, it's because everyone having a voice in this nation of ours would be anarchy, plain and simple. And as Thomas Hobbes said, "during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called War...and the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short"
Slashdot Mirror
Since I'm only starting law school this fall, the limit to which I can respond is to your issue with the court. Congress cannot limit the power of the Supreme Court, whose powers as a coequal branch are found in Article III. In Article I, Section 8, Congress has the power to "constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court." This means that courts underneath the Supreme Court, such as the Federal Court of Appeals, are creations of Congress and thus can have their jurisdiction messed with. This is a big difference from what you implied.
That's a negative. The court rulings specifically differentiate between domestic security threats (for example, an armed group of white supremacists in, say, Michigan), and foreign security threats. It doesn't matter if the operations or personel are in the United States during the surveillance, what matters is the nature of the threat. You're setting up a straw man that isn't even valid. If it comes out that during this program, the NSA was tapping one of Michael Moore's pizza orders, then that's a whole different story.
As for the act, the only method by which Congress could change the powers that the constitution grants to the executive branch is through an amendment to the constitution, which requires quite a bit more scruitiny and acceptance than a simple act. There is a measurable difference.
Actually, this is the point of identifying al Qaeda as a foreign organization, which I think you would have a difficult time arguing against. Not only were the intercepts for the purpose of gaining intelligence regarding this foreign organization, the calls were international on top of this, indicating conversations with members of al Qaeda outside of the country. You didn't actually read the article I linked, did you. Let me show you some excerpts so you don't have to spend the effort (article quoted within brackets):
[In 1980, the Fourth Circuit decided United States v. Truong, another criminal prosecution that arose out of the defendant's spying on behalf of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The case squarely presented the issue of the executive branch's inherent power to conduct warrantless surveillance for national security purposes:
The defendants raise a substantial challenge to their convictions by arguing that the surveillance conducted by the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment and that all the evidence uncovered through that surveillance must consequently be suppressed. As has been stated, the government did not seek a warrant for the eavesdropping on Truong's phone conversations or the bugging of his apartment. Instead, it relied upon a "foreign intelligence" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. In the area of foreign intelligence, the government contends, the President may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs.
The court agreed with the government's position:
For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], "unduly frustrate" the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations.
The court held that warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes are constitutional, as long as the "object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agent or collaborators," and the search is conducted "primarily" for foreign intelligence reasons.]
From later in the article:
[Finally, in 2002, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review decided Sealed Case No. 02-001. This case arose out of a provision of the Patriot Act that was intended to break down the "wall" between law enforcement and intelligence gathering. The Patriot Act modified Truong's "primary purpose" test by providing that surveillance under FISA was proper if intelligence gathering was one "significant" purpose of the intercept. In the course of discussing the constitutional underpinnings (or lack thereof) of the Truong test, the court wrote:
The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power. The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President's power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government's contention that FISA searches are constit
A good post to read about the legal issues here is from powerlineblog at http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012631.php#01263 1
The basic premise of the argument is that there have been many court cases that have affirmed the president's right, derived from his preeminance in foreign affairs given to him in Article 2 of the constitution, to use electronic surveillance, even domestic, without a warrant for the explicit purposes of gathering foreign intelligence. Despite having domestic operatives, there is simply no question that al Qaeda is a foreign organization.
The question has centered around whether or not FISA now requires him to get a warrant for such intelligence gathering. The authors argue, successfully in my opinion, that a legislative act, passed by Congress, CANNOT limit the constitutionally derived powers granted to the executive branch. DO NOT FORGET!!! Congress is a COEQUAL branch of government. It cannot limit or take away the president's constitutional powers by legislative act no more than the president can limit congress' powers by executive order. In short, the NSA program, defined in the narrow terms that it has been, is completely legal.
Btw, yes I admit the linked post is a conservative blog; the authors don't try to hide that. It fails to change the legal analysis.
That actually is somewhat accurate. The establishment clause was intended to keep the United States free of an official religion, with the founders specifically looking at the Church of England as an example. The purpose of the clause was to keep the government from interfering with religion. What's interesting about this is that the French have an even more explicit separate of church and state. However, the purpose of the French separation was to keep religious groups, the Catholic Church in particular from interfering in secular, governmental matters. The American model draws from a fear of government, while the French model draws from a fear of organized religion.
I'm thinking back to all of the many slashdot stories I've read over the years...and this could flat out be the absolute nerdiest thing I've ever read. Wow.
Actually, the National Institute of Health is the federal agency that assigns the funding in question. The NIH is part of the Department of Health and Human services, which is part of the executive branch, which the president is the head of. There's your constitutional basis.
The man's gotta feed his family!
The only problem with such an idea is that any person who comes up with a cure for AIDS is almost surely doing so with the financial backing of a large corporation or a research university. Modern medical research equipment is a bit beyond a setup in one's basement....you'd have to reward the corporation or institute that provided the funding for such research as well as the person or team that found the actual cure.
Actually, it is a little distressing that Canada is ranked higher than America when there are things like this going on:
m l#1097586698
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_10_07.sht
You may not agree with what the man says, but when the Canadaian government starts fining people for essentially not being "nice," particularly in the private context of when those remarks were made, those are some serious limits on freedom of speech. And when even private, noncommercial speech is limited such as in this context, you can bet that you would find such speech limited in the press as well.
Furthermore, it's starting to look like it was Saddam and the UN's own fault that people in his country may have been dying "because" of sanctions. The Oil-for-Food program that was supposed to allow for the wellbeing of Iraqi citizens while maintaining sanctions on things we didn't want Saddam to get his hands on is turning out to have been the most corrupt aid program in history, with billions having been skimmed off the top. The money apparently went to many places, all of them interesting: UN officials including the one running the program, politicians and countries that ended up being opposed to the war in 2003, Saddam himself. With this coming to light, I am frankly quite happy that we "went it alone," without the UN or France or Russia. Here's a couple of links to get started on this story, here and here . There are many people working very hard to bury this seemingly immense scandal, and this could look like an irreprocable big stain on the organization that those such as John Kerry want to "legitimize" the government in Iraq.
Actually, while this is probably unknown around Slashdot, a group can damn well fix prices if they want, it's completely legal. That is not what makes them a monopoly. The key thing that identifies a company or group of companies as a monopoly is if they use their power and standing to prevent others from entering that market. Honestly, with the prevelence of independent record companies, even though they are smaller, I really don't think you would be able to prove in court that the large companies constitute a monopoly. The large companies simply are not doing anything to prevent an independent publisher from entering the industry.
Are you serious? I didn't realize that NASA already had planned all this stuff out and was beginning production on components for these missions all in this calendar year. Please. No one is building anything for these missions for years. This reeks of the same conspiracy theories that surround anything that even has part of the word "Halliburton" in it. I'm sorry to sound condescending, but your good friend seems to me just to be an average Bush hater.
Perhaps this is offtopic, but what about Walmart makes you think what they sell in their stores lacks quality? They sell name brand stuff right alongside their own brands, both at prices lower than in most stores. Their ability to sell at cheap prices arises mainly from their absolutely unprecedented purchasing power; they can buy things on a bulk scale the likes of which no one has seen before. Combine that with a business model that makes very little profit per item sold (again their strategy is to sell in bulk), and you have one of the most sucessful businesses in history. You may knock it, but there is a reason that if you look at a Walmart parking lot, you may see a brand new BMW parked next to a used Hyundai. (And for those of you who would claim that their "low wages" are the entire reason for Walmart's success, I happen to know for a fact that their wages are competitive with many other jobs of that skill level, and yet Walmart succeeds while K-Mart is folding.)
I completely disagree. While some might argue that the Pentagon was a "legitimate military target," you will never convince me that using an airliner filled with civilians as your delivery method is not terrorism.
How is that an abuse? To me, that sounds like Wal-Mart decided to push the Buy American ideal when it was profitable for them, and then switched to imported products when it was clear to them that it would increase profits. That's called good business. A company's most important responsibility is to its investors and its bottom line. That's the whole freakin point of being IN business. If you don't like Wal-Mart and how they conduct their business then you are free to purchase ANYTHING they sell somewhere else, perhaps at a higher or lower price.
A major problem that is on the horizon is the Streamlined Sales Tax. This is something that many states want attached to any internet sales tax ban, and is receiving widespread support in Congress. It is, quite simply, a way around the ban. The idea is to enforce the tax that the parent poster talked about, where a customer is supposed to keep track of the tax he/she pays on items they buy from out of state. Many states have these laws on the books, but they're next to impossible to enforce. What the Steamlined Sales Tax will do is to force businesses to keep track of the tax FOR you. How do they keep track of it? By charging you the tax in the first place. This is another step to the holy grail for (notoriously out of control budget raising) states, a national sales tax. Believe me when I say that there is nothing a governor in New York would love more than to tax a citizen in California. The scary thing is, we're headed right in that direction.
It was money provided through a United Nations aid program for food. Let's not misrepresent facts, alright?
Devices like this are sure to be major headaches for the GPS dependent US Military in the future...I wonder how they would get around them?
Give me exactly what I want or I'm going to aquire it illegally. Ahh, blackmail. Your morals are interesting.
While I'm not sure if you are correct or not about the revelation before the Gulf War, the major difference between these two planes is that the F-117 is an operational aircraft intended for actual combat use...this is merely a prototype that was used to test a new technology that can now be adapted for and applied to operational aircraft down the road.
People reading this site filming Girls Gone Wild videos? Maybe having more time to watch them....
Just because you haven't been provided with a service doesn't give you the right to illegially obtain it through other means. I'd write more but that's pretty much my entire point.
This "new" history? When the hell in history did any and every person in a society have a voice? And if you say ancient Greece, I'll beat you over the head with a book titled "History they teach you after High School." You don't have a voice because everyone having an equal voice (ie being able to propose bills and block others) would be such an inefficient government it would be laughable. You could forget about countries, you would need the world to be divided up into communities and governments about the size of Minerva, NY (pop: inconsequential) to get anything done, and even then you would have Mike G. Whitesupremecist messing stuff up every other day. There's a reason you don't have a voice, it's because everyone having a voice in this nation of ours would be anarchy, plain and simple. And as Thomas Hobbes said, "during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called War...and the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short"
I remember reading that he answered this in at a convention recently. His answer was something along the lines of "no one was watching it."