The FISA Court of Review does not have the authority to rule on Constitutional issues. However as you note, they were just quoting previous SCOTUS rulings. In any case, Bush took an oath to faithfully execute the laws, and has failed to do so. Even if the FISA law is unconstitutional, it's not the President's say. He is bound to the law whether he likes it or not, until SCOTUS says otherwise.
Yeah at one time I agreed with the ACLU's position but have since abandoned it.. but I don't think the "Bush Court" will rule as you think they will. While they talk a lot of game about "the government can do nothing, except.." I think they'll still support many of the positions that are contrary to this view.. like "inherent authority".. or Congress regulating the States through the budget process.
The main problem is that there's two issues butting heads here. One is the president's 'inherent authority' and the other is the President's duty to "take care that the laws are faithfully executed" as outlined in Article II. The President has explicily ignored a law of this nation. That goes against the Constitution and his oath of office and is unacceptable. If there was a problem with the FISA law, the Bush Administration should have raised it with Congress instead of willfully ignoring the law.
Truong was decided post-FISA, but because the actions were pre-FISA, the court could only consider laws at the time of the actions. The FISA court does not make rulings on legality. Perhaps you're referring to the FISA Appeals Court? In any case, there's a law on the books that says you have to get a warrant for "US Persons". There's no way around that.
Just because you state over and over that somehow it is "unacceptable" it does not make it so.
You're right. Here's what makes it so:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--''I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.''
...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed
Emphasis mine. Constitution, Article II. The FISA law has not been faithfully executed. Bush has violated his oath of office and the Constitution.
President Clinton claimed the right to perform warrantless phsical searches for "national security" reasons that included drug raids.
False. What Clinton did was have HUD put clauses into the leases that allowed warrantless searches in some housing projects. It had nothing to do with FISA or national security, and no 'inherent authority' was claimed. This action was challenged by the ACLU and ruled unconstitutional.
The FISA court does not have jurisdiction with respect to Constitutional authority, so I'm baffled. Are you referring to the FISA Appeals Court perhaps? In any case, primary sources are much appreciated.
The FISA law allows warrantless searches of "Agents of Foreign Powers", but not when they are also "US Persons". The actual law.
So long as that is true, it falls under the Executive's wartime authorities under the Constitution.
What authorities are those? Let's look at the Constitution, emphasis mine:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
I'm pretty sure that doesn't say "The President shall have the authority to ignore this document in wartime."
A lot of GOPist groups are trying to use Truong to support the current actions. However, Truong was pre-FISA (decided in 1980, but the events were way before FISA which was 1978). Also Truong was NOT an American citizen and it's unclear if he would meet the FISA definition of "US Persons". If one is classified as an "Agent of a Foreign Power" then warrants are not required.
Carter's actions that are being used to support Bush were also pre-FISA. Clinton's actions (a warrantless physical search) were also at the time outside of the scope of FISA. The Clinton Administration supported the change in FISA to bring searches into the FISA warrant process.
The Bush Administration is knowingly, willingly, and flagrantly violating a law of this nation. That is unacceptable.
So... it's OK to authorize the warrantless search of an American citizen, as long as you think he's a spy, but it's not OK to wiretap a call to a known Al Quaeda phone number in Iran?
You have to look at the history of the FISA laws. FISA was born from Supreme Court decisions in the 70s. The decisions bascially said that warrantless domestic surveillence was not constitutional, but warrantless taps of foreign powers/agents was fine. The FISA law setup the FISA court and warrant process for domestic electronic surveillance as it related to national security (note: non-domestic activities are generally all allowed under the Constitution). The Clinton Administration realized that the FISA law did not address physical searches. They felt that domestic physical searches should be permitted similar to electronic surveillance. However at that time the FISA law had no mechanism for physical searches, so they simply could not get a FISA warrant. It wasn't possible. The FISA court did not have the authority to do that in 1993. The only options the Clinton Administration had was to either get a traditional warrant, which would have tipped Ames off to the investigation and blown the whole thing, or not get a warrant and deal with it after the fact, which is what they did.
The Clinton Administration supported changing the FISA law to include physical searches and require FISA warrants for domestic national security searches. I see no such respect of the law from the Bush Administration. The mechanisms are all in place for what they want to do, and they are simply being ignored. This is unacceptable.
Since when is a city anti-septic? I'm touching doorknobs, handrails, train seats, etc., that thousands of people touch each day. And no, they're not regularly cleaned.
Ah, so I read some opinion pieces, complete with more anecdotes, and I'm suddenly cured! Right. I'm not saying ADA is perfect, but I'm not going to call it bad social policy because of some Rockwell pieces. The first article focuses mainly on employment and ADA. We aren't really talking about that piece of the law, and I'm unsure if I support that piece, as well. The 2nd piece speaks mainly to the employment portion also. The third article is a direct appeal to fear and the wallet, trying to say that ADA costs you money. And he couldn't even find 10 good items!
"You pay the moral and ethical degradation when retroactive laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act pass." "You pay cost in lost time as you walk by row after row of empty wheelchair parking spaces to get to the front door of any American business." Oh no! I demand retribution for those 30 seconds!! The guy mocks the doorknob requirements of ADA with an appeal to common sense that simply lies about the law (round doorknobs, simply put, are not illegal. I've got em in my house, call the cops!).. then he had to invent a hypothetical requirement as the 10th item.
But on the subject of regulations and money.. yes, the ADA costs money. But guess what, so do labor protections, environmental protections, S-OX, food and drug regulations, and just about every other regulation. Yes. Regulation increases the cost of business. I'm not going to cry about that. It's the cost of a better society. I understand you don't agree. Luckily there's more people who agree with me than you.
Yawn. Dude you're so anti-regulation that this doesn't surprise me in the least. Your anecdotes do not justify a policy shift (wrt the overall goals of ADA.. implementation is always another matter), and your opinion is not any more important or right because you have disabled family members.
I sick of people like you who force people like me to do something against our will.
There's nothing forcing you to be part of society. But if you're going to be, then there are certain things you're going to have to do.
The law doesn't help the disabled
That's simply false and doesn't even merit a response.
Many elevators have an on/off switch. It's usually labelled as "Emergency Stop" or "Run/Stop" so most people don't use it, but it's just a glorified on/off.
How about just anouncing the floor number before the elevator stops?
How about putting an overly complex electronics system into what is a simple mechanical device? The ding can be triggered by simple mechanical means. KISS. I'm sure you'd bitch a lot more when the elevator had to be taken out of service to troubleshoot the voice system.
It appears you didn't RTFA, but there's a simple solution nonetheless.. electrical tape over the external floor indicators. I've always thought that those things were torture anyway.. "It's at 5.. it's still at 5! What the fuck are they doing up on 5!! DAMMIT!!! I'll take the stairs.."
5. BING muting. Have you been in these elevators that have to BING at every floor, even when you're going to the 33rd from the 1st? Yeesh, give me a mute button.
The dings aren't for you. Be glad that you can fucking see.
Though this information was generated through observation of the players` physical exertion, one could possibly construe a baseball players` performance as an original expression of his physical acuity. It`s a show he puts on for the spectators, and information gathered from that performance could possibly be copywritable.
If by "one" you mean "a lawyer", then yes.. possibly.
Slashdot Mirror
The FISA Court of Review does not have the authority to rule on Constitutional issues. However as you note, they were just quoting previous SCOTUS rulings. In any case, Bush took an oath to faithfully execute the laws, and has failed to do so. Even if the FISA law is unconstitutional, it's not the President's say. He is bound to the law whether he likes it or not, until SCOTUS says otherwise.
Yeah at one time I agreed with the ACLU's position but have since abandoned it.. but I don't think the "Bush Court" will rule as you think they will. While they talk a lot of game about "the government can do nothing, except.." I think they'll still support many of the positions that are contrary to this view.. like "inherent authority".. or Congress regulating the States through the budget process.
The main problem is that there's two issues butting heads here. One is the president's 'inherent authority' and the other is the President's duty to "take care that the laws are faithfully executed" as outlined in Article II. The President has explicily ignored a law of this nation. That goes against the Constitution and his oath of office and is unacceptable. If there was a problem with the FISA law, the Bush Administration should have raised it with Congress instead of willfully ignoring the law.
Just because you state over and over that somehow it is "unacceptable" it does not make it so.
You're right. Here's what makes it so:Emphasis mine. Constitution, Article II. The FISA law has not been faithfully executed. Bush has violated his oath of office and the Constitution.
President Clinton claimed the right to perform warrantless phsical searches for "national security" reasons that included drug raids.
False. What Clinton did was have HUD put clauses into the leases that allowed warrantless searches in some housing projects. It had nothing to do with FISA or national security, and no 'inherent authority' was claimed. This action was challenged by the ACLU and ruled unconstitutional.
Note that I made no statement in support or opposition to the ACLU's position on the 2nd. In fact, I do disagree with it.
But let me introduce you to the 14th Amendment and the concept known as equal protection.
The FISA court does not have jurisdiction with respect to Constitutional authority, so I'm baffled. Are you referring to the FISA Appeals Court perhaps? In any case, primary sources are much appreciated.
The FISA law allows warrantless searches of "Agents of Foreign Powers", but not when they are also "US Persons". The actual law.
Wow. That's the weakest argument I've ever seen. "We don't know if it even happened, so let's not debate the legality!"
In any case, I'm sure you'll support the Congressional hearings so that we can get the information you need to debate the legality of this program.
What authorities are those? Let's look at the Constitution, emphasis mine:I'm pretty sure that doesn't say "The President shall have the authority to ignore this document in wartime."
A lot of GOPist groups are trying to use Truong to support the current actions. However, Truong was pre-FISA (decided in 1980, but the events were way before FISA which was 1978). Also Truong was NOT an American citizen and it's unclear if he would meet the FISA definition of "US Persons". If one is classified as an "Agent of a Foreign Power" then warrants are not required.
Carter's actions that are being used to support Bush were also pre-FISA. Clinton's actions (a warrantless physical search) were also at the time outside of the scope of FISA. The Clinton Administration supported the change in FISA to bring searches into the FISA warrant process.
The Bush Administration is knowingly, willingly, and flagrantly violating a law of this nation. That is unacceptable.
National ACLU statement on Gun Rights.
So... it's OK to authorize the warrantless search of an American citizen, as long as you think he's a spy, but it's not OK to wiretap a call to a known Al Quaeda phone number in Iran?
You have to look at the history of the FISA laws. FISA was born from Supreme Court decisions in the 70s. The decisions bascially said that warrantless domestic surveillence was not constitutional, but warrantless taps of foreign powers/agents was fine. The FISA law setup the FISA court and warrant process for domestic electronic surveillance as it related to national security (note: non-domestic activities are generally all allowed under the Constitution). The Clinton Administration realized that the FISA law did not address physical searches. They felt that domestic physical searches should be permitted similar to electronic surveillance. However at that time the FISA law had no mechanism for physical searches, so they simply could not get a FISA warrant. It wasn't possible. The FISA court did not have the authority to do that in 1993. The only options the Clinton Administration had was to either get a traditional warrant, which would have tipped Ames off to the investigation and blown the whole thing, or not get a warrant and deal with it after the fact, which is what they did.
The Clinton Administration supported changing the FISA law to include physical searches and require FISA warrants for domestic national security searches. I see no such respect of the law from the Bush Administration. The mechanisms are all in place for what they want to do, and they are simply being ignored. This is unacceptable.
Where was the ACLU during the Clinton Admin when they were doing 100% domestic phone taps in Federal Projects?
Dude, the ACLU was all over that shit. They filed the suits against the provisions in the leases that allowed warrantless searches.
Since when is a city anti-septic? I'm touching doorknobs, handrails, train seats, etc., that thousands of people touch each day. And no, they're not regularly cleaned.
Ah, so I read some opinion pieces, complete with more anecdotes, and I'm suddenly cured! Right. I'm not saying ADA is perfect, but I'm not going to call it bad social policy because of some Rockwell pieces. The first article focuses mainly on employment and ADA. We aren't really talking about that piece of the law, and I'm unsure if I support that piece, as well. The 2nd piece speaks mainly to the employment portion also. The third article is a direct appeal to fear and the wallet, trying to say that ADA costs you money. And he couldn't even find 10 good items!
"You pay the moral and ethical degradation when retroactive laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act pass." "You pay cost in lost time as you walk by row after row of empty wheelchair parking spaces to get to the front door of any American business." Oh no! I demand retribution for those 30 seconds!! The guy mocks the doorknob requirements of ADA with an appeal to common sense that simply lies about the law (round doorknobs, simply put, are not illegal. I've got em in my house, call the cops!).. then he had to invent a hypothetical requirement as the 10th item.
But on the subject of regulations and money.. yes, the ADA costs money. But guess what, so do labor protections, environmental protections, S-OX, food and drug regulations, and just about every other regulation. Yes. Regulation increases the cost of business. I'm not going to cry about that. It's the cost of a better society. I understand you don't agree. Luckily there's more people who agree with me than you.
Yawn. Dude you're so anti-regulation that this doesn't surprise me in the least. Your anecdotes do not justify a policy shift (wrt the overall goals of ADA.. implementation is always another matter), and your opinion is not any more important or right because you have disabled family members.
I sick of people like you who force people like me to do something against our will.
There's nothing forcing you to be part of society. But if you're going to be, then there are certain things you're going to have to do.
The law doesn't help the disabled
That's simply false and doesn't even merit a response.
Flamebait my ass. I'm fucking sick of people who bitch about things that are put in place to help our disabled neighbors.
Many elevators have an on/off switch. It's usually labelled as "Emergency Stop" or "Run/Stop" so most people don't use it, but it's just a glorified on/off.
Also not to mention the matter of language. 33 isn't "Thirty-Three" in every language. But 33 dings is 33 in any language.
How about just anouncing the floor number before the elevator stops?
How about putting an overly complex electronics system into what is a simple mechanical device? The ding can be triggered by simple mechanical means. KISS. I'm sure you'd bitch a lot more when the elevator had to be taken out of service to troubleshoot the voice system.
I'd love it if somebody came up with a way for..
Well, it's already been come up with, thanks to the railroads. But this type of configuration simply isn't cost effective.
It appears you didn't RTFA, but there's a simple solution nonetheless.. electrical tape over the external floor indicators. I've always thought that those things were torture anyway.. "It's at 5.. it's still at 5! What the fuck are they doing up on 5!! DAMMIT!!! I'll take the stairs.."
Not true in taller buildings when you're going to/from the upper floors and you have to stop at every. damn. floor. on the way up/down.
5. BING muting. Have you been in these elevators that have to BING at every floor, even when you're going to the 33rd from the 1st? Yeesh, give me a mute button.
The dings aren't for you. Be glad that you can fucking see.
Though this information was generated through observation of the players` physical exertion, one could possibly construe a baseball players` performance as an original expression of his physical acuity. It`s a show he puts on for the spectators, and information gathered from that performance could possibly be copywritable.
If by "one" you mean "a lawyer", then yes.. possibly.