Federal judge rules NSA wiretapping program unconstitutional

[cvillehog]

I don't see anyone lining up to abridge that constitutional right.

You DON'T?????? Come on!

http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Issues_and_Causes/Firearms_Policy/Gun_Control/Organizations/

This is just a partial list. It seems that what "constitutes" an abridgement is all in the eye of the beholder, now, doesn't it?

Pardon me, I failed to properly explain my sentiment. I see none of the people who are trying to limit the right to privacy in the name of safety and security lining up to give up their weapons.

Is that specific enough for you? Or do you think you will be able to take some part of that out of context as well?

[yupchagee]

As to the legality, we have to wait for the appeals process. This will certainly wind up before the Supreme Court. The claim that this violates free speech & assembly is absurd.

No we don't. It has been ruled illegal. There may be a successful appeal sometime in the future, but as of now, the case is closed. Why is it absurd to say that warrantless wiretapping of US citizens talking to people overseas violates free speech and assembly? If the person abroad is under suspicion, a FISA warrant can easily be obtained to do this very kind of wiretapping. Why do you have so much trouble understanding the need for oversight? The constitution is rife with checks and balances on government powers, why should this be any different?

The case is far from closed. An appeal has been filed. The decision of a federal district judge applies ONLY in that district.

How do you figure that tapping a phone in another country violates freedom of speech & assembly in the US?

Since Congress authorized the use of force against terrorists, I don't think FISA warrants are necessary to tap foreign phones. Or do you think Congress meant It's OK to kill them, but don't tap their phones"?

Even in peacetime, we spy on people in other countries, what's different now?

[Countertrey]

Pardon me, I failed to properly explain my sentiment.

Yet, I am the one who took it out of context???

[cvillehog]

Yet, I am the one who took it out of context???

Are you saying I took something out of context?

[Countertrey]

You implied that I did.

Is that specific enough for you? Or do you think you will be able to take some part of that out of context as well?

I'm not trying to start an additional argument, here.
I just don't follow how, if you concede that you didn't explain your sentiment adequately, I took your response out of context. That's all.

[cvillehog]

You implied that I did.

Is that specific enough for you? Or do you think you will be able to take some part of that out of context as well?

I'm not trying to start an additional argument, here.
I just don't follow how, if you concede that you didn't explain your sentiment adequately, I took your response out of context. That's all.

Pardon me for not including some sort of emoticon or other marker of sarcasm. I humbly beg your forgiveness.

[Deadskins]

As to the legality, we have to wait for the appeals process. This will certainly wind up before the Supreme Court. The claim that this violates free speech & assembly is absurd.

No we don't. It has been ruled illegal. There may be a successful appeal sometime in the future, but as of now, the case is closed. Why is it absurd to say that warrantless wiretapping of US citizens talking to people overseas violates free speech and assembly? If the person abroad is under suspicion, a FISA warrant can easily be obtained to do this very kind of wiretapping. Why do you have so much trouble understanding the need for oversight? The constitution is rife with checks and balances on government powers, why should this be any different?

The case is far from closed. An appeal has been filed. The decision of a federal district judge applies ONLY in that district.

How do you figure that tapping a phone in another country violates freedom of speech & assembly in the US?

Since Congress authorized the use of force against terrorists, I don't think FISA warrants are necessary to tap foreign phones. Or do you think Congress meant It's OK to kill them, but don't tap their phones"?

Even in peacetime, we spy on people in other countries, what's different now?

So when a murderer is convicted, and plans an appeal, do you wait for the appeals process to play itself out before you lock him up? This is more a violation of the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/cons ... 4/#Scene_1
Phones are being tapped indescriminantly, which is the issue. I suspect you already know that, which is why you won't answer my question about oversight.

[Countertrey]

Cvillehog.... Whatever, dude. I'm done.

[Countertrey]

So when a murderer is convicted, and plans an appeal, do you wait for the appeals process to play itself out before you lock him up?

Sorry, dude. It happens. Sometimes, a bond is posted, and the convicted individual is permitted to remain out, especially if the accepting judge believes there is a strong case for overturn.

In this case, the justices are probably convinced that there would be irreparable harm if the injunction was not stayed, yet the decision was overturned on appeal. It also says that they believe that there is a reasonable possibility that an overturn is possible. Plus, remember, there is no criminal complaint here. It is a civil action. There are no individuals at risk of overt infringement of their rights, no individuals at risk of injury, no harm, no foul.

A stay is in effect.

You and a whole bunch of people deliberately overlook one critical word contained within the 4th ammendment... unreasonable searches and seizures. Do you think that word is unimportant? Did they not mean it when they wrote it?

The question becomes, is it unreasonable to covertly collect information from individuals outside the US, and who present a clear risk to the US, in the course of a conversation with an individual of unknown risk to the US and within the US,, on the part of the CinC in the performance of his Constitutional duties during time of national crisis related to the activities of those foreign individuals?

Are you kidding? It is absolutely brainless and UNREASONABLE not to.

[yupchagee]

As to the legality, we have to wait for the appeals process. This will certainly wind up before the Supreme Court. The claim that this violates free speech & assembly is absurd.

No we don't. It has been ruled illegal. There may be a successful appeal sometime in the future, but as of now, the case is closed. Why is it absurd to say that warrantless wiretapping of US citizens talking to people overseas violates free speech and assembly? If the person abroad is under suspicion, a FISA warrant can easily be obtained to do this very kind of wiretapping. Why do you have so much trouble understanding the need for oversight? The constitution is rife with checks and balances on government powers, why should this be any different?

The case is far from closed. An appeal has been filed. The decision of a federal district judge applies ONLY in that district.

How do you figure that tapping a phone in another country violates freedom of speech & assembly in the US?

Since Congress authorized the use of force against terrorists, I don't think FISA warrants are necessary to tap foreign phones. Or do you think Congress meant It's OK to kill them, but don't tap their phones"?

Even in peacetime, we spy on people in other countries, what's different now?

So when a murderer is convicted, and plans an appeal, do you wait for the appeals process to play itself out before you lock him up? This is more a violation of the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/cons ... 4/#Scene_1
Phones are being tapped indescriminantly, which is the issue. I suspect you already know that, which is why you won't answer my question about oversight.

Phones are being tapped indescriminantly, which is the issue.

Where is your evidence?
Whose phones have been tapped in this country?
In this case, no claim about tapping domestic calls is made. The plaintifs "assume" that they are being monitored.

You didn't answer my question: Do you think that Congress, in authorizing force, meant that it's OK to kill terrorists but not to spy on them?

[Deadskins]

It has always been OK to spy on terrorists. No one has a problem with that!

Wait... let me repeat that so you understand.


IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN OK TO SPY ON TERRORISTS. NO ONE HAS A PROBLEM WITH THAT!



That is why the FISA court was established.

What is NOT OK, is spying on US citizens without a warrant (and ALL of the calls being monitored in this case involve a conversation between a person overseas, speaking with a US CITIZEN in this country). Congress' authorization of force in no way exonerates this behavior. Read the 4th Amendment again. It couldn't be more clear.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I was not in the courtroom, but for the judge to have ruled the way she did, I would have to believe that the plaintiffs entered into evidence proof that they were being wiretapped, or at least made a case that the defendants (the NSA) could not refute by evidence of their own. There have been numerous reports of the other, entirely domestic, spying which I mentioned. Do I have proof? No. Why would I? There are several other suits that have been filed against telecoms, and banks regarding that spying. I'm sure that evidence will be entered in those cases that will also not be refuted by the NSA.

OK, so now I feel I have answered your questions. Will you answer mine?

Why do you have so much trouble understanding the need for oversight? The constitution is rife with checks and balances on government powers, why should this be any different?

[Deadskins]

So when a murderer is convicted, and plans an appeal, do you wait for the appeals process to play itself out before you lock him up?

Sorry, dude. It happens. Sometimes, a bond is posted, and the convicted individual is permitted to remain out, especially if the accepting judge believes there is a strong case for overturn.

In this case, the justices are probably convinced that there would be irreparable harm if the injunction was not stayed, yet the decision was overturned on appeal. It also says that they believe that there is a reasonable possibility that an overturn is possible. Plus, remember, there is no criminal complaint here. It is a civil action. There are no individuals at risk of overt infringement of their rights, no individuals at risk of injury, no harm, no foul.

A stay is in effect.

You and a whole bunch of people deliberately overlook one critical word contained within the 4th ammendment... unreasonable searches and seizures. Do you think that word is unimportant? Did they not mean it when they wrote it?

The question becomes, is it unreasonable to covertly collect information from individuals outside the US, and who present a clear risk to the US, in the course of a conversation with an individual of unknown risk to the US and within the US,, on the part of the CinC in the performance of his Constitutional duties during time of national crisis related to the activities of those foreign individuals?

Are you kidding? It is absolutely brainless and UNREASONABLE not to.

I'm not overlooking the word "unreasonable" at all. Quite the contrary. It is reasonable, and prudent, to spy on such conversations. No one ever said it wasn't. What is unreasonable is to not get a warrant, and to expect "we are at war against terrorists" to suffice as an excuse for not doing so.

[crazyhorse1]

The professor who can't spell wrote:

Bush is a national disgrace and the sooner we're free of him and his enablers the better off the country will be.

Just what, exactly, are you suggesting? Is this an example of the "free political discourse" you pretend to espouse?

Too bad about the spelling. I'm old and half blind and not capable of catching mistakes. I don't watch Fox News, however, which means I haven't totally slipped over the edge.

As for "enablers," I was referring to the Republican congress, which continues to lick the jeweled (literally) boots of President Cowboy instead of doing its job. Come to think of it, though, I should also be referring to the rank and file members of the right who can only feel whole when they attach themselves to authority figures. That way, I might jog a few of them into reaching for adulthood rather than their guns.

[crazyhorse1]

The professor who can't spell wrote:

Bush is a national disgrace and the sooner we're free of him and his enablers the better off the country will be.

Just what, exactly, are you suggesting? Is this an example of the "free political discourse" you pretend to espouse?

Too bad about the spelling. I'm old and half blind and not capable of catching mistakes. I don't watch Fox News, however, which means I haven't totally slipped over the edge.

As for "enablers," I was referring to the Republican congress, which continues to lick the jeweled (literally) boots of President Cowboy instead of doing its job. Come to think of it, though, I should also be referring to the rank and file members of the right who can only feel whole when they attach themselves to authority figures. That way, I might jog a few of them into reaching for adulthood rather than their guns.

[crazyhorse1]

From the judges decision:

This is a challenge to the legality of a secret program (hereinafter “TSP”) undisputedly
inaugurated by the National Security Agency (hereinafter “NSA”) at least by 2002 and continuing
today, which intercepts without benefit of warrant or other judicial approval, prior or subsequent,
the international telephone and internet communications of numerous persons and organizationswithin this country. The TSP has been acknowledged by this Administration to have been
authorized by the President’s secret order during 2002 and reauthorized at least thirty times since.1
Plaintiffs are a group of persons and organizations who, according to their affidavits, are
defined by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (hereinafter “FISA”) as “U.S. persons.”2 They
conducted regular international telephone and internet communications for various uncontestedly
legitimate reasons including journalism, the practice of law, and scholarship. Many of their
communications are and have been with persons in the Middle East. Each Plaintiff has alleged a
“well founded belief” that he, she, or it, has been subjected to Defendants’ interceptions, and that
the TSP not only injures them specifically and directly, but that the TSP substantially chills and
impairs their constitutionally protected communications. Persons abroad who before the program

1) these are international calls.
2) the plaintifs THINK they have been monitored.

This case seems curious to me.


http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Jud ... pinion.pdf

Is this better?

Whether or not the monitoring was national or internation and whether or not it was effective or not, the court has found montoring without warrants illegal and unconstitutional.

It is and was unconstitutional and illegal-- that is open and shut. The President wants the law changed (and the Constitution, probably) to absolve him of impeachable crimes (numerous counts). That can't work. The President's action can't be made legal retroactively. It was a violation of the law at a time when he was sworn to uphold the existing laws of the United States.

Constitutional expert, Republican Johnathon Turley, said on Christ Mathew's show last night that there is really no possible legal argument for the President. He also said the only real discussion in the legal community is what to do about the President's guilt.

He could be impeached, sentenced to a jail term, etc. (my comment). Turley said words to the effect that if the Republican congress lets the President get away with his law breaking, it will be the hugest whitewash job in the nation's history.

The idea that Bush wiretapped only for national security doesn't stand up.
NSA was easily capable of handling all warrants needed; warrants could be granted by the NSA even after the fact, so there was no reason to try to get around the NSA-- except perhaps an illegal one.

We know now he wasn't taping just international calls, but was also taping domestic calls. He was also taping people and groups in the US who aren't and weren't terrorist suspects or suspected supporters, such as anti-war groups and other political opponents.

Bush is a national disgace and the sooner we're free of him and his enablers the better off the country will be.

There are a lot of constitutional lawyers who would dispute your claim thatthis is an open & shut case. At least in this case, there was no mention of monitoring domestic comunication. Are you saying that the US constitution prevents us from spying on people in other countries? If so, he have to retroactively impeach every president since Washington.

If we can spy on those in other countries, than it should be obvious that we can record all conversations these people have, no matter where the other party is located.

As to the legality, we have to wait for the appeals process. This will certainly wind up before the Supreme Court. The claim that this violates free speech & assembly is absurd.

I realize that for some people, their pathological hatred of Bush is so overwhelming that they would rather the country fail than Bush succeed.

I'm willing to give our government a little leeway if it helps keep terrorists from blowing airplanes out of the sky.

"The constitution is not a suicide pact." Abraham Lincoln

Since when has Bush protected us from anything? Besides, he could have gotten warrants? Do you yet understand that? And do you yet understand that he was wasn't only tapping intenational calls? Are you so committed to this imbecile that you block news from your brain. It doesn't matter how well you reason if you don't have the facts to reason from. Yes, if I believed, as you, that Bush wasn't spying domesticallly, if the process of obtaining warrants was an impediment, and if what Bush is doing were proven effective, I would reason my way closer to your position. But absolutely none of the above is true. He is spying domestically. He is spying without warrants either needlessly or for political advantage, or for some other undisclosed reason; and he and his fellow neocoms have nothing to show in relation to our security for their
stomping of the Constitution. We have only their word for it, and they have a history of lying, as well as being inept in relation to war or just about any other function of government.
Those are the facts. Try reasoning from those facts and see what you come up with.

[Deadskins]

So when a murderer is convicted, and plans an appeal, do you wait for the appeals process to play itself out before you lock him up?

Sorry, dude. It happens. Sometimes, a bond is posted, and the convicted individual is permitted to remain out, especially if the accepting judge believes there is a strong case for overturn.

Only if the defendant can afford it.

[yupchagee]

It has always been OK to spy on terrorists. No one has a problem with that!

Wait... let me repeat that so you understand.


IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN OK TO SPY ON TERRORISTS. NO ONE HAS A PROBLEM WITH THAT!



That is why the FISA court was established.

What is NOT OK, is spying on US citizens without a warrant (and ALL of the calls being monitored in this case involve a conversation between a person overseas, speaking with a US CITIZEN in this country). Congress' authorization of force in no way exonerates this behavior. Read the 4th Amendment again. It couldn't be more clear.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I was not in the courtroom, but for the judge to have ruled the way she did, , or at least made a case that the defendants (the NSA) could not refute by evidence of their own. There have been numerous reports of the other, entirely domestic, spying which I mentioned. Do I have proof? No. Why would I? There are several other suits that have been filed against telecoms, and banks regarding that spying. I'm sure that evidence will be entered in those cases that will also not be refuted by the NSA.

OK, so now I feel I have answered your questions. Will you answer mine?

Why do you have so much trouble understanding the need for oversight? The constitution is rife with checks and balances on government powers, why should this be any different?

I asked if it was OK (according to US law) to tap phones in other countries.
You haven't answered this question. If it isn't then our entire inteligence system would be illegal & always would have been. If it is, then where is the problem.

Let's say the govt gets a warrant to tap your phone. They would then be allowed to listen to all calls to or from that phone. If I called you, they would be allowed to listen even though there's no warrant to tap my phone.

I would have to believe that the plaintiffs entered into evidence proof that they were being wiretapped

Why would you "have" to assume this? Are you saying that no judge has ever rendered a flawed opinion? Or that no judge has ever rendered a flawed opinion with which you agree?

[Deadskins]

It has always been OK to spy on terrorists. No one has a problem with that!

Wait... let me repeat that so you understand.


IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN OK TO SPY ON TERRORISTS. NO ONE HAS A PROBLEM WITH THAT!



That is why the FISA court was established.

What is NOT OK, is spying on US citizens without a warrant (and ALL of the calls being monitored in this case involve a conversation between a person overseas, speaking with a US CITIZEN in this country). Congress' authorization of force in no way exonerates this behavior. Read the 4th Amendment again. It couldn't be more clear.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I was not in the courtroom, but for the judge to have ruled the way she did, , or at least made a case that the defendants (the NSA) could not refute by evidence of their own. There have been numerous reports of the other, entirely domestic, spying which I mentioned. Do I have proof? No. Why would I? There are several other suits that have been filed against telecoms, and banks regarding that spying. I'm sure that evidence will be entered in those cases that will also not be refuted by the NSA.

OK, so now I feel I have answered your questions. Will you answer mine?

Why do you have so much trouble understanding the need for oversight? The constitution is rife with checks and balances on government powers, why should this be any different?

I asked if it was OK (according to US law) to tap phones in other countries.
You haven't answered this question. If it isn't then our entire inteligence system would be illegal & always would have been. If it is, then where is the problem.

I'm not sure if there is anything in the US legal code that deals with our efforts at espionage in another country. I suppose a lot depends on the other country. England might aide us in our efforts to spy on British citizens, but I'm sure Russia or China would take great offense at such an act. Anyway, I doubt there is anything in the US law to disallow spying on foreign nationals, as the Constitution does not pertain to them. In this case, the party that is in the US is a US citizen, and the Constitution does pertain to them.

Let's say the govt gets a warrant to tap your phone. They would then be allowed to listen to all calls to or from that phone. If I called you, they would be allowed to listen even though there's no warrant to tap my phone.

Correct. Why is that a problem? I understand what you are getting at, but that is the system. If the government got a warrant, and tapped my phone, and then you called me, they could listen to the conversation. If you became implicated in some crime, by way of this conversation, they could then get a warrant to search your home, and/or tap your phone as well. There is specific language in the law that allows the government to get a warrant after the fact, if they acted in good faith, but time was critical to the investigation, and a warrant could not be procured in time.

I would have to believe that the plaintiffs entered into evidence proof that they were being wiretapped

Why would you "have" to assume this? Are you saying that no judge has ever rendered a flawed opinion? Or that no judge has ever rendered a flawed opinion with which you agree?

Man, this is why trying to have a debate with you is pointless. In your scenario, the judge would have to have ruled that the spying program was unconstitutional with only hearsay as evidence.

OK, so now I feel I have answered your questions for the second time. Will you ever answer mine?

Why do you have so much trouble understanding the need for oversight? The constitution is rife with checks and balances on government powers, why should this be any different?

[yupchagee]

I'm not sure if there is anything in the US legal code that deals with our efforts at espionage in another country. I suppose a lot depends on the other country. England might aide us in our efforts to spy on British citizens, but I'm sure Russia or China would take great offense at such an act. Anyway, I doubt there is anything in the US law to disallow spying on foreign nationals, as the Constitution does not pertain to them. In this case, the party that is in the US is a US citizen, and the Constitution does pertain to them.

yupchagee wrote:
Let's say the govt gets a warrant to tap your phone. They would then be allowed to listen to all calls to or from that phone. If I called you, they would be allowed to listen even though there's no warrant to tap my phone.

Correct. Why is that a problem? I understand what you are getting at, but that is the system. If the government got a warrant, and tapped my phone, and then you called me, they could listen to the conversation. If you became implicated in some crime, by way of this conversation, they could then get a warrant to search your home, and/or tap your phone as well. There is specific language in the law that allows the government to get a warrant after the fact, if they acted in good faith, but time was critical to the investigation, and a warrant could not be procured in time.

By analogy: if in the case of a legal, warranted tap, authorities are allowed to listen to & act on the conversation of someone for whom there was no warrant, then in the case of a legal (by US law) tap on a foreign phone, authorities can leasten to & act on what they hear from a party in the US without a warrant on that phone.

It doesn't matter what laws in the other country are. We spy on other countries all the time, & they spy on us. Let's say we tapped a phone in the Chinese defense ministry &
heard a conversation between the Chinese official & an American citizen. Are you saying that we couldn't use that information against the American? I hope that we would.

There have been numerous reports of the other, entirely domestic, spying which I mentioned. Do I have proof? No.

Do you have any credible evidence? The cases to which you are refering weren't wiretaps. These telecon cases involved records of calls made from or to specific #'s. This is not new. Law enforcement agencies have long used this as a weapon to track down sexual preditors. The bank cases involve international transfers. Again this is a longstanding method used against drug dealers. You are objecting to established techniques used by administrations of both parties.

Since when has Bush protected us from anything? Besides, he could have gotten warrants? Do you yet understand that? And do you yet understand that he was wasn't only tapping intenational calls? Are you so committed to this imbecile that you block news from your brain. It doesn't matter how well you reason if you don't have the facts to reason from.

Several terror plots have been uncovered. We don't (& shouldn't) know what techniques were used in these cases. You have offered nothing to back up your claims that domestic calles were tapped.

I'm not "committed to Bush". I'm committed to living in a dangerous world.

If Bush is an "imbecile", what does that make those wh have lost to him?

I'm using facts, you are the 1 making assumptions (tapping domestic calls, a judge not being wrong.

As for checks & balances, IF the NSA has tapped domestic (both parties in the US) that is a totally separate issue. A warrant would be necessary for that information to be admissable in court. If & when such a case arises, we can discuss it then.

If violation of separation of powers were impeachable, there would be very few judges left on the federal bench.

JSPB22 wrote:
So when a murderer is convicted, and plans an appeal, do you wait for the appeals process to play itself out before you lock him up?


Sorry, dude. It happens. Sometimes, a bond is posted, and the convicted individual is permitted to remain out, especially if the accepting judge believes there is a strong case for overturn.

Only if the defendant can afford it.

I was on a jury in a drug case (street dealer). The defendant was out on bail & he had a PD.

[Deadskins]

yupchagee,

In your spying scenario, they would simply get the warrant post facto, through the FISA court.

You are totally incorrect in your telecom, and bank analyses. Those institutions are subject to tens of thousands of dollars in fines for each instance of giving away customers personal information, regardless of to whom they give the information.

In your jury experience, had the drug dealer been convicted and was appealing the verdict, or was he still innocent, in that he had not yet been proven guilty?

You continue to try and refute things I have said with irrelevant or inapplicable points. Focus, man!

Your next post in this thread should directly answer these two questions:

Why do you have so much trouble understanding the need for oversight? The constitution is rife with checks and balances on government powers, why should this be any different?

If it doesn't, I'll just go back to agreeing with everything you post.

[yupchagee]

yupchagee,

In your spying scenario, they would simply get the warrant post facto, through the FISA court.

You are totally incorrect in your telecom, and bank analyses. Those institutions are subject to tens of thousands of dollars in fines for each instance of giving away customers personal information, regardless of to whom they give the information.

In your jury experience, had the drug dealer been convicted and was appealing the verdict, or was he still innocent, in that he had not yet been proven guilty?

You continue to try and refute things I have said with irrelevant or inapplicable points. Focus, man!

Your next post in this thread should directly answer these two questions:

Why do you have so much trouble understanding the need for oversight? The constitution is rife with checks and balances on government powers, why should this be any different?

If it doesn't, I'll just go back to agreeing with everything you post.

As I understand the constitution, Congressional oversight is not required for every action of the executive. In fact I could not find the phrase "Congressional oversight" in the constitution. Congress has the power to legislate. The President has the power to execute laws. The courts have the power to interpret laws. I find nothing in the constitution that gives congress the power to "Oversee" the executive in its role of executing laws.

I agree that there are numerous violations of the separation of powers Courts now legislate (& in some cases execute laws) & congress tries to execute laws. I'm sure you can point to cases of presidents trying to legislate. I wish everyone in govt would limit him/her self to what the constitution grants.

[Deadskins]

yupchagee,

In your spying scenario, they would simply get the warrant post facto, through the FISA court.

You are totally incorrect in your telecom, and bank analyses. Those institutions are subject to tens of thousands of dollars in fines for each instance of giving away customers personal information, regardless of to whom they give the information.

In your jury experience, had the drug dealer been convicted and was appealing the verdict, or was he still innocent, in that he had not yet been proven guilty?

You continue to try and refute things I have said with irrelevant or inapplicable points. Focus, man!

Your next post in this thread should directly answer these two questions:

Why do you have so much trouble understanding the need for oversight? The constitution is rife with checks and balances on government powers, why should this be any different?

If it doesn't, I'll just go back to agreeing with everything you post.

As I understand the constitution, Congressional oversight is not required for every action of the executive. In fact I could not find the phrase "Congressional oversight" in the constitution. Congress has the power to legislate. The President has the power to execute laws. The courts have the power to interpret laws. I find nothing in the constitution that gives congress the power to "Oversee" the executive in its role of executing laws.

I agree that there are numerous violations of the separation of powers Courts now legislate (& in some cases execute laws) & congress tries to execute laws. I'm sure you can point to cases of presidents trying to legislate. I wish everyone in govt would limit him/her self to what the constitution grants.

Well, at least you finally attempted to answer the questions. I suppose I should be happy with that.

In this case the oversight is being performed by the judicial branch in the form of a warrant. But the question was more in the abstract. Do you believe that any one branch of government should be able to perform functions with no checks on its authority from the other branches, even when the Constitution expressly requires those checks?

[yupchagee]

yupchagee,

In your spying scenario, they would simply get the warrant post facto, through the FISA court.

You are totally incorrect in your telecom, and bank analyses. Those institutions are subject to tens of thousands of dollars in fines for each instance of giving away customers personal information, regardless of to whom they give the information.

In your jury experience, had the drug dealer been convicted and was appealing the verdict, or was he still innocent, in that he had not yet been proven guilty?

You continue to try and refute things I have said with irrelevant or inapplicable points. Focus, man!

Your next post in this thread should directly answer these two questions:

Why do you have so much trouble understanding the need for oversight? The constitution is rife with checks and balances on government powers, why should this be any different?

If it doesn't, I'll just go back to agreeing with everything you post.

As I understand the constitution, Congressional oversight is not required for every action of the executive. In fact I could not find the phrase "Congressional oversight" in the constitution. Congress has the power to legislate. The President has the power to execute laws. The courts have the power to interpret laws. I find nothing in the constitution that gives congress the power to "Oversee" the executive in its role of executing laws.

I agree that there are numerous violations of the separation of powers Courts now legislate (& in some cases execute laws) & congress tries to execute laws. I'm sure you can point to cases of presidents trying to legislate. I wish everyone in govt would limit him/her self to what the constitution grants.

Well, at least you finally attempted to answer the questions. I suppose I should be happy with that.

In this case the oversight is being performed by the judicial branch in the form of a warrant. But the question was more in the abstract. Do you believe that any one branch of government should be able to perform functions with no checks on its authority from the other branches, even when the Constitution expressly requires those checks?

Of course where the constitution specifically requires such a check, it should be done. It is equally true that where 1 branch is given sole authority, other branches should butt out.

[crazyhorse1]

yupchagee,

In your spying scenario, they would simply get the warrant post facto, through the FISA court.

You are totally incorrect in your telecom, and bank analyses. Those institutions are subject to tens of thousands of dollars in fines for each instance of giving away customers personal information, regardless of to whom they give the information.

In your jury experience, had the drug dealer been convicted and was appealing the verdict, or was he still innocent, in that he had not yet been proven guilty?

You continue to try and refute things I have said with irrelevant or inapplicable points. Focus, man!

Your next post in this thread should directly answer these two questions:

Why do you have so much trouble understanding the need for oversight? The constitution is rife with checks and balances on government powers, why should this be any different?

If it doesn't, I'll just go back to agreeing with everything you post.

As I understand the constitution, Congressional oversight is not required for every action of the executive. In fact I could not find the phrase "Congressional oversight" in the constitution. Congress has the power to legislate. The President has the power to execute laws. The courts have the power to interpret laws. I find nothing in the constitution that gives congress the power to "Oversee" the executive in its role of executing laws.

I agree that there are numerous violations of the separation of powers Courts now legislate (& in some cases execute laws) & congress tries to execute laws. I'm sure you can point to cases of presidents trying to legislate. I wish everyone in govt would limit him/her self to what the constitution grants.

By the Constitution, the President is requires to execute the laws of the land. If he fails to do so, or breaks the laws he is sworn to uphold, Congress, by the Constitution, is empowered to perform its oversight function by impeaching him.
The right to impeach is the oversight function of Congress. Do you claim this it not true?

[yupchagee]

yupchagee,

In your spying scenario, they would simply get the warrant post facto, through the FISA court.

You are totally incorrect in your telecom, and bank analyses. Those institutions are subject to tens of thousands of dollars in fines for each instance of giving away customers personal information, regardless of to whom they give the information.

In your jury experience, had the drug dealer been convicted and was appealing the verdict, or was he still innocent, in that he had not yet been proven guilty?

You continue to try and refute things I have said with irrelevant or inapplicable points. Focus, man!

Your next post in this thread should directly answer these two questions:

Why do you have so much trouble understanding the need for oversight? The constitution is rife with checks and balances on government powers, why should this be any different?

If it doesn't, I'll just go back to agreeing with everything you post.

As I understand the constitution, Congressional oversight is not required for every action of the executive. In fact I could not find the phrase "Congressional oversight" in the constitution. Congress has the power to legislate. The President has the power to execute laws. The courts have the power to interpret laws. I find nothing in the constitution that gives congress the power to "Oversee" the executive in its role of executing laws.

I agree that there are numerous violations of the separation of powers Courts now legislate (& in some cases execute laws) & congress tries to execute laws. I'm sure you can point to cases of presidents trying to legislate. I wish everyone in govt would limit him/her self to what the constitution grants.

By the Constitution, the President is requires to execute the laws of the land. If he fails to do so, or breaks the laws he is sworn to uphold, Congress, by the Constitution, is empowered to perform its oversight function by impeaching him.
The right to impeach is the oversight function of Congress. Do you claim this it not true?

Find where I claimed that Congress doesn't have the power to impeach.

The president, VP & federal judges can be impeached for "bribery, treason or other high crimes & misdemeanors". The constitution is (deliberately?) vague as to exactly what constitutes high crimes & misdemeanors.

If violating separation of powers were strictly enforced, there would be a lot of vacancies on the federal bench. I'm more concerned with the courts userping the powers given to the legislative & executive branches because judges have very little accountability. They are appointed for life.