Yes, and FISA explicitly allows for warrentless searches in cases when "the object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agents or collaborators," and "the surveillance is conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons." It's important to note that Truong was pre-FISA. The problem is that when the object of the search is not a foreign power, etc., it appears that warrants have not been obtained. Agents of the NSA, members of Congress and members of the FISA court have expressed severe doubts over the legality of the program, so the question obviously isn't as simple as you make it out to be.
Now then. The President swore to the following oath, twice:
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.
.. and of course he just had to add a "so help me God" for good measure the second time around.. but that's besides the point. Later in Article II, Sec. 3, we find this:
.. he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..
If the Executive thinks a law is unconstitutional, they can petition the Court to review it, or petition Congress to repeal it. It is not the Executive's job to decide, without informing anyone save a few members of Congress who are sworn to secrecy, that a law is unconstitutional or improper and that it does not deserve to be upheld. That simply is not the job of the President as laid out in the Constitution. The Constitution simply does not allow the President to ignore the law.
Personally, I find the argument that the president can't authorize listening to Al Queda's phone calls but CAN authorize killing them with attack drones and hellfire missiles to be totally lacking in common sense.
Red herring, and that's not my argument. The President can authorize both of these actions under some general conditions (e.g. no assassination in US territory [violates 5th amendment of due process], no wiretap without warrant for 'US Persons' [violates 4th amendment], etc.).
The Constitution gives the executive branch the power to do pretty much anything to defend the nation.
Please show me where, because it's not in my copy. Funny that you cite Truong. Here's what the FISA review court had to say about Truong in 2002.. all of it, which National Review conveniently left out:
Although the Truong court acknowledged that "almost all foreign intelligence investigations are in part criminal" ones, it rejected the government's assertion that "if surveillance is to any degree directed at gathering foreign intelligence, the executive may ignore the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment."
From here. Emphasis mine. Funny what happens when you use original sources instead of relying on mouthpieces.
In its inaugural issue, Buckley said that the magazine "stands athwart history yelling 'Stop,' at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it."
Doesn't seem like they're yelling 'Stop' anymore, does it?
Warrantless monitoring of electronic communications involving 'U.S. Persons' is explicitly banned by legislation. How about a counter-argument to that?
Why don't you ask your dentist some questions about their past? I'm sure there's something there that you wouldn't like, but that wouldn't make them any less of a dentist, no?
But a lot of folks buy SUVs to pull heavier things, too. That's what my comments were meant to point out.
Then why didn't you say that in the first place? What you said was "If a family camps, boats... an SUV is often a necessity." That statement is a simply false, and no amount of explanation and caveats is going to help.
If a family camps, boats, or participates in other off road activities, an SUV is often a necessity.
That's bullshit. My family went camping and boating dozens of times and has never owned an SUV. The SUV wasn't mainstream until the 90s.. you think people didn't camp and go boating before then?
No, they aren't exempt from fuel efficiency laws. Rather, they tend to fall into the truck category for CAFE standards.
Right. I believe only the H2 is heavy enough to push it out of the 'light truck' class, where there are indeed no efficiency standards.. the H2 doesn't even have the mileage on the window sticker. It's also not required to do the collision tests.
Does anybody remember how it used to be?.. That was the only option to get those singles I enjoyed.
I assume you mean the only legal option? Even so, it's not completely true. If the songs were truly 'singles' then they were also released... as singles! Which means you didn't have to buy the whole album. There's also the chance they were released as a B-side.
If you wanted to go quasi-legal, you could have grabbed them off the radio (if that particular song got airtime). To go whole hog, you could have taken the track from a friend's copy of the album.. that double tape deck more than paid for itself.
You have to remember that your employer is paying more than just your salary. They're paying part of the payroll taxes, partially funding healthcare premiums, and in some cases provide additional benefits (pension/401k matching, tuition assistance, etc)... you can't really compare your salary vs. contractor fees without additional data.
Grocery shopping.. you either live within walking distance and/or you don't buy as much when you go. It's a pain if you're used to buying $100 worth of groceries.. but it makes it a lot easier to cut back on soda. A lot of stores also offer vans that will take you home if you have a lot of stuff.. and you can always take a cab, of course.
Buying large items: Have it delivered, or use Zipcar/Flexcar.. these are car-sharing companies where you can rent vehicles for small amounts of time.. or you can rent the small U-Haul for ~$20.
Where I worked.. I was not on piecework.. but those who did were penalized if their products failed QC more than once. Workers could QC their own pieces (QC mainly consisted of a leak check) because going through the 'official' QC. It was a slightly different shop than your situation.. people were making tanks that took anywhere from a day to a week to assemble.
After posting and reading other comments, it appears that the store I went to did not fully implement the "Express" system. Either way, we have dueling anecdotes.. it happens.
In the US, it is almost illegal to discriminate based on qualities outside of the work requirements. I find it callous that government should tell me to hire someone with $300,000 in debt, or a history or cocaine abuse or someone who doesn't agree with my morals and my business sense.
First off, almost illegal = legal. But in any case, we have differing interpretations of labor laws. It's not an area I'm well versed in, but my understanding is that outside of the protected classes (age, race, gender, religion, etc), you can discriminate as much as you want. My understanding is that many companies now look at credit reports and perform the exact kind of discrimination you insinuate is illegal.. and we all know that many employers use drug tests and background checks..
Their newfangled system didn't work at the Apple store where I went. The guy with the credit card reader just stared at me, even after I asked him about product availability. Several staff members told me they were out of stock for a certain product, when in fact they were not out of stock (The guy behind me in line, who didn't talk to the floor staff, got the last one.. that sucked).
And there were still fairly large lines. It wasn't that there were a ton of people there.. the transactions were slow because the cashiers had to explain the email service, then type in the email (if applicable), etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Now then. The President swore to the following oath, twice:.. and of course he just had to add a "so help me God" for good measure the second time around.. but that's besides the point. Later in Article II, Sec. 3, we find this:If the Executive thinks a law is unconstitutional, they can petition the Court to review it, or petition Congress to repeal it. It is not the Executive's job to decide, without informing anyone save a few members of Congress who are sworn to secrecy, that a law is unconstitutional or improper and that it does not deserve to be upheld. That simply is not the job of the President as laid out in the Constitution. The Constitution simply does not allow the President to ignore the law.
Personally, I find the argument that the president can't authorize listening to Al Queda's phone calls but CAN authorize killing them with attack drones and hellfire missiles to be totally lacking in common sense.
Red herring, and that's not my argument. The President can authorize both of these actions under some general conditions (e.g. no assassination in US territory [violates 5th amendment of due process], no wiretap without warrant for 'US Persons' [violates 4th amendment], etc.).
Please show me where, because it's not in my copy. Funny that you cite Truong. Here's what the FISA review court had to say about Truong in 2002.. all of it, which National Review conveniently left out:From here. Emphasis mine. Funny what happens when you use original sources instead of relying on mouthpieces.
Best part of that article:
In its inaugural issue, Buckley said that the magazine "stands athwart history yelling 'Stop,' at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it."
Doesn't seem like they're yelling 'Stop' anymore, does it?
Warrantless monitoring of electronic communications involving 'U.S. Persons' is explicitly banned by legislation. How about a counter-argument to that?
What's the point of civil liberties when the private entities prevent us from exercising them?
What's to stop somebody from expressing their "freedom of speech", and their "freedom of expression" by terminating your status as a living being?
You idiot. You accuse the GP of hyperbole and you drop this pile of shit argument?
Obviously your right to life trumps their freedom of expression in that case. The idea of 'balancing rights' predates the USA.
"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." --Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Why don't you ask your dentist some questions about their past? I'm sure there's something there that you wouldn't like, but that wouldn't make them any less of a dentist, no?
But a lot of folks buy SUVs to pull heavier things, too. That's what my comments were meant to point out.
Then why didn't you say that in the first place? What you said was "If a family camps, boats... an SUV is often a necessity." That statement is a simply false, and no amount of explanation and caveats is going to help.
If a family camps, boats, or participates in other off road activities, an SUV is often a necessity.
That's bullshit. My family went camping and boating dozens of times and has never owned an SUV. The SUV wasn't mainstream until the 90s.. you think people didn't camp and go boating before then?
No, they aren't exempt from fuel efficiency laws. Rather, they tend to fall into the truck category for CAFE standards.
Right. I believe only the H2 is heavy enough to push it out of the 'light truck' class, where there are indeed no efficiency standards.. the H2 doesn't even have the mileage on the window sticker. It's also not required to do the collision tests.
Most of the people who are, or will argue with you will likely cite art
I would direct them to here and here, for starters.
I'm not making any statements, just providing links. Believe whatever you want.
And, looking closer, it appears that Jefferson borrowed the phrase from George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights, written shortly before the DoI.
I seem to remember a document 13 years prior that read, in part, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.."
I am reminded of the great wisdom of David Cross:
"Dude, it was so funny I literally shit my pants!"
"Well, what did you do?"
"What do you mean, dude? I was laughing..."
"I mean, what did you do with your shitty pants?"
"No, dude, I didn't REALLY shit my pants, I LITERALLY shit my pants!"
It may not have been anything like this at all, but this is the feeling one gets.
No, that's the feeling that you get.
Does anybody remember how it used to be? .. That was the only option to get those singles I enjoyed.
I assume you mean the only legal option? Even so, it's not completely true. If the songs were truly 'singles' then they were also released... as singles! Which means you didn't have to buy the whole album. There's also the chance they were released as a B-side.
If you wanted to go quasi-legal, you could have grabbed them off the radio (if that particular song got airtime). To go whole hog, you could have taken the track from a friend's copy of the album.. that double tape deck more than paid for itself.
You have renamed your 'Administrator' account, right?
My understanding is that even if you rename your admin account, the user name 'Administrator' is still valid, unless you reghack.
You have to remember that your employer is paying more than just your salary. They're paying part of the payroll taxes, partially funding healthcare premiums, and in some cases provide additional benefits (pension/401k matching, tuition assistance, etc)... you can't really compare your salary vs. contractor fees without additional data.
Serious question, though...
Grocery shopping.. you either live within walking distance and/or you don't buy as much when you go. It's a pain if you're used to buying $100 worth of groceries.. but it makes it a lot easier to cut back on soda. A lot of stores also offer vans that will take you home if you have a lot of stuff.. and you can always take a cab, of course.
Buying large items: Have it delivered, or use Zipcar/Flexcar.. these are car-sharing companies where you can rent vehicles for small amounts of time.. or you can rent the small U-Haul for ~$20.
Where I worked.. I was not on piecework.. but those who did were penalized if their products failed QC more than once. Workers could QC their own pieces (QC mainly consisted of a leak check) because going through the 'official' QC. It was a slightly different shop than your situation.. people were making tanks that took anywhere from a day to a week to assemble.
After posting and reading other comments, it appears that the store I went to did not fully implement the "Express" system. Either way, we have dueling anecdotes.. it happens.
This was done during the industrial revolution. Workers were paid not on a wage, but by how many units of whatever they could produce.
This is commonly known as piecework, and is still in practice (in non-union shops, of course).
In the US, it is almost illegal to discriminate based on qualities outside of the work requirements. I find it callous that government should tell me to hire someone with $300,000 in debt, or a history or cocaine abuse or someone who doesn't agree with my morals and my business sense.
First off, almost illegal = legal. But in any case, we have differing interpretations of labor laws. It's not an area I'm well versed in, but my understanding is that outside of the protected classes (age, race, gender, religion, etc), you can discriminate as much as you want. My understanding is that many companies now look at credit reports and perform the exact kind of discrimination you insinuate is illegal.. and we all know that many employers use drug tests and background checks..
Their newfangled system didn't work at the Apple store where I went. The guy with the credit card reader just stared at me, even after I asked him about product availability. Several staff members told me they were out of stock for a certain product, when in fact they were not out of stock (The guy behind me in line, who didn't talk to the floor staff, got the last one.. that sucked).
And there were still fairly large lines. It wasn't that there were a ton of people there.. the transactions were slow because the cashiers had to explain the email service, then type in the email (if applicable), etc.
It means that the odds of an impeachment crossing BOTH houses AND surviving an appeal would be next to nil.
An appeal? There's no such thing for an impeachment trial. Any successful appeal would be an example of judicial activism.