| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79
Comments:
<0> on both sides
<1> its called "seperation of powers"
<2> Never thought you would miss John Ashcroft, did ya
<3> We already got a preview of that in a speech Scalia gave, and in the writings of Rhenquist on the history of constitutional power in war.. and how the supreme court defers to the president or executive branch.
<0> DeDannan: so are basically the judges on the hearing wrong?
<1> the judiciary and congress has tried to blur the lines of the executive since the beginning of this country
<4> Publius, I'm not talking about you...I'm talking about the Admin ignoring the FISA provisions
<3> Rusty, To say constitutionally its illegal is very ignorant..
<0> LOL
<0> sorry
<0> DeDannan: did you watch the hearing?
<3> Ro say its constitutionally legal is very ignorant.
<3> There is only one body which can tell what it is.
<1> FT, it is constitutionally illegal
<3> and thats the Supreme court..
<3> The rest are opinions
<3> And opinions are like ***holes, everyone has one.
<1> FT, FISA was never p***ed on a constitutional level
<4> Title 18, Part I, Chapter 119, Section 2511: "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 [FISA] shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted."
<1> period
<4> now...how hard is that to comprehend?
<3> Rusty, YOu said the president doesnt have constitutional authority
<0> DeDannan: http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Current_Event&Code=Bush_Admin&ShowVidNum=18&Rot_Cat_CD=BA&Rot_HT=&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=365&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=30
<3> You cant know that
<3> nor can anyone else.
<1> NO I didn't
<3> You can only suggest it as an opinion.
<1> FT.......
<1> REad what i posted
<3> 10:59] <1> FT, it is constitutionally illegal
<1> it was a direct quote from the guy who co-wrote FISA
<4> Title 18, Part I, Chapter 119, Section 2511: "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 [FISA] shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted."
<1> shall i repost FT?
<0> DeDannan: Have you seen or read the interpretation of this?
<3> I would of said this if I was you, Im my opinion its constitutionally illegal because of argument A,B,C and d.
<4> now...if you dont like the law...CHANGE IT!
<5> wow `426Hemi agree on something
<0> go there and watch the 2.5 hour long hearing
<1> In a significant vindication for President Bush, a judge who co-authored the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act said Tuesday that the president was duly authorized under the Constitution to order the wiretapping of suspected terrorists - without getting a warrant from the FISA Court.
<1> Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, former FISA Court Judge Allan Kornblum said that president's Constitutional powers supersede the FISA law, which critics claim the Bush program violated.
<3> Like I used when I gave the opinon that it was probably legal
<1> read it FT
<4> dont just circumvent or ignore it...
<1> and IN my opinion it is constitutionally illegal
<3> To ***sume that congressional authority is over the president is to deny that they are co equal branches.
<0> DeDannan: the writers of the LAW said BUSH was WITHIN THE LAW
<6> DeD: *if* he has a constitutional power, the "law" is irrelevent.
<0> OR
<3> COngress can affirm constitutional powers of the president, but they cant take any of it away.
<1> FISA is an obstruction of the executive
<0> the constitution RATHER
<4> FT, and vice versa
<1> FT, they need a CONSTITUTIONAL change to change the powers of the president
<4> Lupine, if, indeed
<3> [10:58] <3> We already got a preview of that in a speech Scalia gave, and in the writings of Rhenquist on the history of constitutional power in war.. and how the supreme court defers to the president or executive branch.
<1> FISA doesn't stand up to that litmus test
<0> if there is a problem, the president's constitutional POWERS take precedence to this law
<3> That was my A and B
<0> and they didn't
<1> FISA was never added to the Constitution
<4> then CHANGE THE ****ING LAW!!
<3> Rusty nope
<3> You dont get it.
<0> IT DOESNT NEED IT
<0> well
<0> lOL
<0> It does in general
<5> FreeTrade, ok but when will the war on terror ever end?
<6> DeD: irrelevent, the law would be an unconstitutional limitation of presidential powers..
<6> sand: when will we pull US troops out of Japan, Germany and South Korea?
<1> FT, there is nothing to get, if its NOT in the constitution......
<3> I am saying in my opinion its already an inherent power of the president in time of war under the constitutional authority vested in the president as commander in chief.
<4> dont just say...ok..I agree with this law...so I'll obey it...but this one..no sir..dont like this one..so piss on it
<1> you can't just "add" it on a whim
<4> Lupine, then challenge the law
<4> dont ignore it
<1> the judicial and the legislating branch is stepping on the toes of the executive
<6> DeD: the president doesn't have to.
<0> DeDannan: then your side should change the law, not try to impeach Bush
<0> your side= the opposition to BUsh
<7> haha 426
<0> whatever
<0> you know what i mean
<4> my side>
<4> ****
<0> you knwo what I fuggin mean man
<7> and all 3 step on us...whats new
<4> "my side" believes that laws were written for a reason...
<4> but what the hell
<3> And I am saying until it goes before the supreme court and they make a decisions, all of our opinions are worth about as much as the others including the experts, because only the Supreme court can define presidential power as per the constitution.
<7> Pubius..no..let the Dems go ahead an Impeach Bush
<7> LOLOL
<4> just trust the government...
<8> hi
<1> DeDannan, laws are all fine and good but they have to be within the constitution
<0> CryHavoc: you mean "try"
<4> `426Hemi, then challenge the law
<1> if you are going to change the executives job to figurehead than p*** the ****ing law
<4> dont just ignore it
<1> thats YOUR job
<3> The Judicial branch (Supreme court only) Its job is to ajudicate differences between congress and the executive Rusty.
<1> i don't have to
<7> DeDannan..if you believe that...its time to quit humping that Rowan tree :)
<1> the job is already stated
<3> If such a dispute is taken to law.
<1> to protect and defend against Foreign and DOMESTIC enemies
<6> DeD: the Bush administration already appealed to the FISA court of review, and they RULED IN FAVOR OF BUSH.
<4> Lupine, when?
<6> DeD: bush didn' tHAVE to challenge the law, but they did. and WON
<0> DeDannan: too bad Bush was too busy protecting America to get around to changing a law the constitution allows him to trump
<4> Lupine, when?
<1> FT, the Judicial branch doesn't have supreme authority over the executive....
<4> and dont cite the 2002 ruling..which has nothing to do with domestic surveillance whatsoever
<1> the Judicial only has the ability to say "Yes you violated the constitution or no you didn't"
<6> DeD: are you publically admitting your ignorance of the FISA Course of Review case 02-001 and 02-002?
<0> if BushLOL
<1> the judicial can not "make law"
<3> Let me give you an example,Congress p***es a bill saying the president cant ever attack possible civilian targets while after military targets. And if so the President shall be liable for impeachment, the president would turn around and ask the court to rule on the constitutionality of this congressional law
<3> Thats a crude and bad example
<1> FISA is not a constitutional law
<1> period
<3> but it should illustrate the law
<6> DeD: It had to do with the surveillance of calls from the US, to overseas.
<3> Rusty the issue isnt fisa
<1> show me where there is FISA in the constitution
<0> DeDannan: watch the hearing
<4> Lupine, the one that has nothing to do with domestic surveillance? no..I'm fully aware of that, thanks
<1> it is the issue, what have we been talking about for the past hour?
<0> then come back to us
<1> the presidents right to wiretap
<3> there is a question of whether or not the president is under the authority of Fisa
<1> through FISA laws
<1> what else is the issue?
<6> DeD: FISA SCR took the balls of the FISA judges, laid them out on a table. AND SMASHED THERI BALLS..
<3> Fisa may have no constitutional right to force the president to do anything.
<1> FISA is not protected under the constitution
<1> it is therefore not Constitutional
<3> A congressional law such as FISA does not mean its constitutional.
<1> heh
<3> It may not be.
<4> Lupine, oh wow! I bet that was a sight to behold!
<3> It may be in times of peace
<3> but not so in times of war.
<3> Again this is a constitutional question.
<4> nothing whatever to do with the issue at hand....but what the hell
<6> FISA tried to restrict the Executive branch illegally in its surveillance of international calls that originated domestically.
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
vmware bsod vista shutdown
#beginner
#qmail
create autoplay.inf
artistic effect pluggin
#hardware
most of them dead the rest of the dying
#beginner
Tail Babalonia
sizzurup
|
|