I think you're being entirely too generous. Half the story would often be a big improvement. Lots of times, the story is simply completely false from beginning to end or it's so colored by the ignorance and arrogance of the media figures as to be complete misinformation. See any Health News story for an example of this.
And skepticism shouldn't be reserved for stories that seem surprising. Boring news may be a little less faulty, but it's nowhere near reliable.
No. The Executive doesn't need them. If the President and the Congress disagree on the Constitutionality of a law, the President can (and should) uphold his oath of office and act according to his interpretation of the Constitution. If Congress or someone else wants to challenge that, we have courts.
Yes, the President may choose to ignore a law, and Congress may choose to bring forth articles of impeachment if he does so.
But it would be easier and more proper and more practical to simply bring a lawsuit in court to sort out the disputed question.
Where's the provision in the Constitution that says that if there's a dispute, the Legislative branch automatically wins until the courts say otherwise?
Are you guys really saying that the President should bow to the Congress even when he thinks the Constitution says something different than the Congress? He takes an oath to the Constitution, not to Congress.
If he believes it to be an unconstitutional breach of executive power, he is, I'm sure, perfectly welcome to bring suit, and have the matter adjudicated, but he is not the arbiter of constutionality, the Court is.
That's actually backwards. If the Executive finds a law unconstitutional, he can simply ignore it unless there's a court ruling. He needn't sue. He doesn't need the courts' powers, he has his own The court can be brought in to decide things at some point, but the Executive doesn't have to ask the court's permission beforehand every time there's an open question. There's no presumption against Executive authority in disputes like these.
It's clearly not a question that has been resolved. I've said that before. The "it's obviously illegal crowd" is simply wrong. It isn't "obviously" illegal. It isn't "obviously" legal either.
There are arguments on both sides that seem to have legal merit.
One side wants to protect America from terrorists; the other wants to protect terrorists from America. That's the basis on which I chose my side.
I believe what he's getting at is that you're full of it.
He's welcome to his judgment on that.
You've taken a position that you seem unwilling to defend
I've defended it in kind. He says "it's illegal". I say he's wrong. He offers no arguments but says "it's illegal" again. I could offer some arguments, but it would take some effort. Why should I put forth the effort if he won't?
"No it isn't" is a perfectly adequate retort to "yes it is". They are of equal substance.
See the difference? It cites historical precedent.
(Clearly I'm winning the argument now. If only everyone had access to a search engine, they could make substantive arguments too. I'm sure everyone is convinced and has changed their mind. What a fruitful discussion this is. Let's continue until agreement reaches 100%.)
So a judge has never thrown out evidence in a federal case because of an unconstitutional wire tap?
The standards for wiretapping in a law enforcement capacity are different than the standards for wiretapping foreign agents in an intelligence capacity. Are you claiming they are precisely the same?
Are you also claiming that the penalty for this wiretapping should simply be that the evidence can't be used in a criminal trial? Since the goal is to prevent terrorism rather than to win in court rooms, that's not much of a problem.
Care to come up with a relevant example and some case law where a court has upheld a signing statement...
There's no reason a court would take the case. The signing statements have no effect. What would a court say? "We disagree with the opinion expressed in the President's signing statement"?
That there are two sides to a dispute does not imply that the two are equally well supported.
Not sure what you're getting at.
There are arguments on both sides. They are long and mention a lot of case law. You're saying they support your side. I'll say they don't. Neither one of us will convince anyone and it wouldn't matter if we did.
Don't argue your case or anything. Just keeps saying "this is illegal", "that is criminal", etc.
No, it isn't.
Care to come up with a relevant example and some case law where a court decided it was "illegal" or "criminal"? Or will it just be buzzwords and "yes it is, no it isn't"?
The signing statement is making the violation of the law public and explicit, the policy is implemented anyway, and yet nobody can do anything about it?
That's just it. If it were truly a violation of the law, someone could do something about it.
I think you have confused "legal" and "illegal" with your preferences. Just because you'd prefer a course of action doesn't make it illegal to deviate from that course of action.
Those signing statements actually have no effect. They are simply clarifications of policy. All the complaining you're hearing about them is just noise. If anything, it's a lot more honest to issue signing statements declaring a policy rather than to simply implement the policy quietly.
Your attempt at scare-mongering probably worked on some other people though.
That's an entirely different argument that's much more complicated. There's various case law. There has been no definitive court ruling specifically on this issue though -- unless I missed a recent one.
The separation of powers argument is fairly clear, however.
FISA "was designed . . . to curb the practice by which the Executive Branch may conduct warrantless electronic surveillance on its own unilateral determination that national security justifies it."
The Legislative branch doesn't have the authority to take Executive powers away whenever it wants to. The Executive branch either has a power under the Constitution or it doesn't. The Congress doesn't have the authority to take away Executive powers it didn't grant in the first place.
They spend the money to buy the pieces of equipment that are designed to do the job. They hook them up the way they are designed to be hooked up. They put fail-safes into the system. It's (somewhat) expensive and time-consuming. It's not a hack.
It can't really be considered "homebrew" any more than buying a Cisco Router is a "homebrew" routing solution.
Asking programmers and PC hardware hackers how to do industrial automation is like asking a plumber how to write a web app. Except unreliable industrial automation systems can kill people, where unreliable web apps are simply annoying.
A "homebrew" furnace monitor just seems like a bad idea.
There are people that do industrial automation. There are large companies that make every type of sensor you can imagine to monitor anything you want. There are industrial controllers to control automatic assembly lines. This stuff is all off-the-shelf. It's not "homebrew".
If you're asking this on Slashdot, you're looking in the wrong place.
Do it like a professional would do it. It's a furnace. Stuff can go wrong. Monitoring it with a half-assed homebrew approach is probably worse than simply observing it carefully and worrying about it all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're being entirely too generous. Half the story would often be a big improvement. Lots of times, the story is simply completely false from beginning to end or it's so colored by the ignorance and arrogance of the media figures as to be complete misinformation. See any Health News story for an example of this.
And skepticism shouldn't be reserved for stories that seem surprising. Boring news may be a little less faulty, but it's nowhere near reliable.
No, the Executive does not have court powers.
No. The Executive doesn't need them. If the President and the Congress disagree on the Constitutionality of a law, the President can (and should) uphold his oath of office and act according to his interpretation of the Constitution. If Congress or someone else wants to challenge that, we have courts.
Yes, the President may choose to ignore a law, and Congress may choose to bring forth articles of impeachment if he does so.
But it would be easier and more proper and more practical to simply bring a lawsuit in court to sort out the disputed question.
Where's the provision in the Constitution that says that if there's a dispute, the Legislative branch automatically wins until the courts say otherwise?
Are you guys really saying that the President should bow to the Congress even when he thinks the Constitution says something different than the Congress? He takes an oath to the Constitution, not to Congress.
If he believes it to be an unconstitutional breach of executive power, he is, I'm sure, perfectly welcome to bring suit, and have the matter adjudicated, but he is not the arbiter of constutionality, the Court is.
That's actually backwards. If the Executive finds a law unconstitutional, he can simply ignore it unless there's a court ruling. He needn't sue. He doesn't need the courts' powers, he has his own The court can be brought in to decide things at some point, but the Executive doesn't have to ask the court's permission beforehand every time there's an open question. There's no presumption against Executive authority in disputes like these.
That's ok. I wasn't trying that hard.
It's clearly not a question that has been resolved. I've said that before. The "it's obviously illegal crowd" is simply wrong. It isn't "obviously" illegal. It isn't "obviously" legal either.
There are arguments on both sides that seem to have legal merit.
One side wants to protect America from terrorists; the other wants to protect terrorists from America. That's the basis on which I chose my side.
That ruling was stayed by the appeals court and it is considered overwhelmingly likely to be overturned.
And Reagan. And Carter.
Article
Since FISA was passed in 1978, that's almost every President since then. A consensus.
I believe what he's getting at is that you're full of it.
He's welcome to his judgment on that.
You've taken a position that you seem unwilling to defend
I've defended it in kind. He says "it's illegal". I say he's wrong. He offers no arguments but says "it's illegal" again. I could offer some arguments, but it would take some effort. Why should I put forth the effort if he won't?
"No it isn't" is a perfectly adequate retort to "yes it is". They are of equal substance.
Here's a substantive argument: Warrantless searches were legal in the Aldrich Ames case.
See the difference? It cites historical precedent.
(Clearly I'm winning the argument now. If only everyone had access to a search engine, they could make substantive arguments too. I'm sure everyone is convinced and has changed their mind. What a fruitful discussion this is. Let's continue until agreement reaches 100%.)
Without a valid warrant, the search is illegal.
Except in the cases when it isn't. See the Aldrich Ames case for examples of warrantless searches.
Article
So a judge has never thrown out evidence in a federal case because of an unconstitutional wire tap?
The standards for wiretapping in a law enforcement capacity are different than the standards for wiretapping foreign agents in an intelligence capacity. Are you claiming they are precisely the same?
Are you also claiming that the penalty for this wiretapping should simply be that the evidence can't be used in a criminal trial? Since the goal is to prevent terrorism rather than to win in court rooms, that's not much of a problem.
Care to come up with a relevant example and some case law where a court has upheld a signing statement...
There's no reason a court would take the case. The signing statements have no effect. What would a court say? "We disagree with the opinion expressed in the President's signing statement"?
The existing law is perfectly clear that domestic wiretapping without a warrant gotten through FISA is illegal.
No it isn't (unless there have been some very recent court rulings to the contrary).
Someone who thought it was illegal could challenge the action in court and the courts might rule on it.
That there are two sides to a dispute does not imply that the two are equally well supported.
Not sure what you're getting at.
There are arguments on both sides. They are long and mention a lot of case law. You're saying they support your side. I'll say they don't. Neither one of us will convince anyone and it wouldn't matter if we did.
Don't argue your case or anything. Just keeps saying "this is illegal", "that is criminal", etc.
No, it isn't.
Care to come up with a relevant example and some case law where a court decided it was "illegal" or "criminal"? Or will it just be buzzwords and "yes it is, no it isn't"?
Congrats on having a dictionary.
I said clarifications of policy, not clarifications of the law itself.
It is criminal.
Like the last poster, you apparently have "criminal" confused with something you simply don't like.
Folks who confuse the two are dangerous, though there seem to be a lot of you.
The signing statement is making the violation of the law public and explicit, the policy is implemented anyway, and yet nobody can do anything about it?
That's just it. If it were truly a violation of the law, someone could do something about it.
I think you have confused "legal" and "illegal" with your preferences. Just because you'd prefer a course of action doesn't make it illegal to deviate from that course of action.
Like all disputes, there are 2 sides. This one is unresolved, even if you have personally picked a side.
"This doesn't apply to me" doesn't count as "clarification of policy".
Yes it does. It's a written interpretation of the scope of a law and sets the Executive branch policy for the enforcement of the law.
...signing statements...
Those signing statements actually have no effect. They are simply clarifications of policy. All the complaining you're hearing about them is just noise. If anything, it's a lot more honest to issue signing statements declaring a policy rather than to simply implement the policy quietly.
Your attempt at scare-mongering probably worked on some other people though.
That's an entirely different argument that's much more complicated. There's various case law. There has been no definitive court ruling specifically on this issue though -- unless I missed a recent one.
The separation of powers argument is fairly clear, however.
FISA "was designed . . . to curb the practice by which the Executive Branch may conduct warrantless electronic surveillance on its own unilateral determination that national security justifies it."
The Legislative branch doesn't have the authority to take Executive powers away whenever it wants to. The Executive branch either has a power under the Constitution or it doesn't. The Congress doesn't have the authority to take away Executive powers it didn't grant in the first place.
Can't we just teach people to do this now?
Can't we each just mind our own business?
...how do you think the "professionals" do it...
They spend the money to buy the pieces of equipment that are designed to do the job. They hook them up the way they are designed to be hooked up. They put fail-safes into the system. It's (somewhat) expensive and time-consuming. It's not a hack.
It can't really be considered "homebrew" any more than buying a Cisco Router is a "homebrew" routing solution.
Asking programmers and PC hardware hackers how to do industrial automation is like asking a plumber how to write a web app. Except unreliable industrial automation systems can kill people, where unreliable web apps are simply annoying.
A "homebrew" furnace monitor just seems like a bad idea.
Google Spreadsheets is the most technically impressive web app I've seen.
There are people that do industrial automation. There are large companies that make every type of sensor you can imagine to monitor anything you want. There are industrial controllers to control automatic assembly lines. This stuff is all off-the-shelf. It's not "homebrew".
If you're asking this on Slashdot, you're looking in the wrong place.
Do it like a professional would do it. It's a furnace. Stuff can go wrong. Monitoring it with a half-assed homebrew approach is probably worse than simply observing it carefully and worrying about it all the time.
I would survey the users.