[Ed O]

Originally Posted by SodaPopinski

Maybe I should have said "taken more vacation than any president in the last 100 years." Either way - it still doesn't change my point. Talkhard implied that Bush is doing everything possible to protect the American people. My retort was that he clearly is not and cited his affinity for vacationing in Texas. Clearly the guy is entitled to vacation, and probably more than most of us deserve, but c'mon. Are you seriously arguing that the amount and length of the guy's time off is reasonable?

I think that "time off" is ambiguous. He's not out hiking in the mountains, for crying out loud. He has command centers and situation reports and whatever else Presidents need wherever he goes.

Need I remind anyone of the Katrina debacle when Bush refused to cut his vacation short to visit the Gulf Coast?

No. Because it doesn't have anything to do with anything, as far as I can tell. He might have made a political mistake, but I don't think that if he were in Washington he would have made his bashers any happier with the way he handled Katrina.

Get real, Ed O. The fact you even cited Adams and Madison is laughable.

Why, were they not presidents in history? And why aren't you chastising Stepping Razor for his assertion that Madison is rolling over in his grave at how the Constitution is being treated?

There's plenty to criticize Bush for without making stuff up.

You made a ridiculous assertion, which is not in and of itself remarkable except insofar as it was so easily proven false. It's OK. I do the same thing sometimes, but I don't tell people who correct me to "get real".

Ed O.

[hoojacks]

Since when is the FISA court's legitimacy in question? Wiretapping is illegal without a special warrant. Bush ordered wiretapping without the warrant. It's a law. It's in the books. No need for a supreme court ruling. It's not that hard to understand.

Is a law not a law until the most recent supreme court ruling? The act was illegal when it was done, it's still illegal now. (It's been illegal since 1978!) It doesn't matter that maybe in the future the supreme court might overturn it.

Law = broken
President = broke the law

[MARIS61]

Originally Posted by TradeShareefNow

Law = broken
President = broke the law

President broke the law = Impeachment and jail time

If our Constitution means anything at all.

[Ed O]

Originally Posted by TradeShareefNow

Since when is the FISA court's legitimacy in question?

Since now. Since a few months ago. Why does it matter?

Wiretapping is illegal without a special warrant. Bush ordered wiretapping without the warrant. It's a law. It's in the books. No need for a supreme court ruling. It's not that hard to understand.

Not if you fail to understand that not all laws passed by congress hold up.

Fortunately, I am able to comprehend that congress can't always tell the President what to do any more than they can always tell us what to do as individuals. The special review court for FISA has stated that "...FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." (In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002) ) Which makes sense, since executive power coming from the constitution cannot be taken away through an act of congress.

Of course, "Wiretapping is illegal without a special warrant" is ridiculously simplistic and wrong in many cases even under FISA, and FISA doesn't cover every wiretapping situation. And the President may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order for foreign intelligence information targeting foreign powers. That doesn't appear to be how Bush is claiming to have been empowered to do what he did, but "Wiretapping is illegal without a special warrant" is wrong no matter how many text effects you add to it.

Is a law not a law until the most recent supreme court ruling? The act was illegal when it was done, it's still illegal now. (It's been illegal since 1978!) It doesn't matter that maybe in the future the supreme court might overturn it.

It absolutely DOES matter. Congress and the President are powers that are supposed to balance one another. Congress created FISA as part of an attempt to strip power from the executive, and Bush is attempting to reclaim some of those capabilities. Until and unless the act is judged illegal (and all appeals exhausted) I will reserve judgment as to the legitimacy and constitutionality of the FISA law.

Law = broken
President = broke the law

Let's take a look at another law:

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

This is a federal law. Do you think that people on this site break the law every day by posting intentionally annoying posts under false names? I guess by your definition (that any law is a law, irrespective of whether it's constitutional or not) that the answer would be "yes".

To me, I believe that the e-annoyance law is ridiculous and I think that if/when it gets to the Supreme Court it will be overturned. I don't label people that break this silly law criminals until I see people convicted and the law upheld.

Ed O.

[It's_GO_Time]

Originally Posted by Ed O

To me, I believe that the e-annoyance law is ridiculous and I think that if/when it gets to the Supreme Court it will be overturned. I don't label people that break this silly law criminals until I see people convicted and the law upheld.
Ed O.

The problem I have with this logic is you don't seem to deem any law as valid until the Supreme Court upholds it. I don't think that is how the law work. The law is valid until overturned by the courts.

It's nice that you don't label people criminals until the law is upheld, but law enforcement, the District Attorney's Office and the trial courts don't operate on the same premise. It is the law until overturned.

However, if arrested for disorderly conduct, I will be sure to call you to see if you can pursuade the police not to arrest me becuase the Supreme Court hasn't decided the constitutionality of the law.

[Stepping Razor]

Originally Posted by Ed O

Since now. Since a few months ago. Why does it matter?



Not if you fail to understand that not all laws passed by congress hold up.

Fortunately, I am able to comprehend that congress can't always tell the President what to do any more than they can always tell us what to do as individuals. The special review court for FISA has stated that "...FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." (In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002) ) Which makes sense, since executive power coming from the constitution cannot be taken away through an act of congress.

Of course, "Wiretapping is illegal without a special warrant" is ridiculously simplistic and wrong in many cases even under FISA, and FISA doesn't cover every wiretapping situation. And the President may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order for foreign intelligence information targeting foreign powers. That doesn't appear to be how Bush is claiming to have been empowered to do what he did, but "Wiretapping is illegal without a special warrant" is wrong no matter how many text effects you add to it.



It absolutely DOES matter. Congress and the President are powers that are supposed to balance one another. Congress created FISA as part of an attempt to strip power from the executive, and Bush is attempting to reclaim some of those capabilities. Until and unless the act is judged illegal (and all appeals exhausted) I will reserve judgment as to the legitimacy and constitutionality of the FISA law.



Let's take a look at another law:

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

This is a federal law. Do you think that people on this site break the law every day by posting intentionally annoying posts under false names? I guess by your definition (that any law is a law, irrespective of whether it's constitutional or not) that the answer would be "yes".

To me, I believe that the e-annoyance law is ridiculous and I think that if/when it gets to the Supreme Court it will be overturned. I don't label people that break this silly law criminals until I see people convicted and the law upheld.

Ed O.

Hey Ed,

Thanks for posting. (I was worried we had forever driven you away through some combination our incessant bickering and our craptacular team.) You're a lawyer, no? I like your perspective on this.

If, as you suggest, the FISA law itself unduly restricts the constitutional power inherent in the executive, what would be the proper way for the President to challenge it?

Through some sort of legal action, or simply by violating the law? Since (as I understand it, anyway) the President can't be sued for his actions in office, while he's in office, how could this matter move to the Supreme Court for resolution?

I don't have any problem with revising FISA, either to account for technological innovations, or to bring the law itself into constitutionality vis-a-vis executive power, if it's not already; I just have a major problem with the President just willfully ignoring the law rather than working to change it. Especially considering that FISA itself was passed by Congress with the express intent of limiting the egregious abuses of the police state power of the executive branch in Watergate, COINTELPRO, etc. In this context, Bush's actions seem to me to be a dangerous exertion of extralegal executive power.

But in truth I'm not sure whether my opinion here is a legitimate legal view or just a political one.

Your thoughts?

Stepping Razor

PS I do think I destroyed Talkhard talking points, though... At least the ones about how Bush "talked to lawyers" and "informed Congress" so therefore there's nothing to see here.

[Talkhard]

President broke the law = Impeachment and jail time

More than one president has broken the law, and none of them have served jail time.

Clinton did have his law license suspended and was fined $100,000 for committing perjury, but he's a free man today, living large up in Chappaqua.

[MARIS61]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

More than one president has broken the law, and none of them have served jail time.

Until now.