Fox Mulder
Active Member
Okay, now before you liberals get too excited, this is actually intended as a lesson--to show you how easily you are manipulated by the press. Consider this Mulder's First Lesson on Constitutional Law--pull up a chair, get a pad and some paper and take some notes.
Now as step 1 in Mulder's Constiutional Law class, first--read this article:
"Senate Votes to Expand Spy Powers"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/us/13fisa.html?hp
Of course its from the Grey Rag and it uses explosive emotional language with little in the way of actual legal analysis or facts. Words in the title itself "Spy Powers" gets liberals blood boiling before they even read one word of the article--essentially by implication it suggests that Bush has developed a "new" program of wiretapping without warrants and flat out implies it violates the Constitution. It does not.
Let's take a look at the actual legislation and the Act discussed in the article in a little detail:
The article cited is referring primarily to FISA (Foriegn Intelligence Surveillance Act), which dates back to 1978--long before the Patriot Act--and long before Bush took office. Niether the Patriot Act nor FISA gave Bush or any president the power to use warrantless wiretaps-- the Constution gave it to him 200 plus years ago (not wiretaps because phones didn't exist, but the power to conduct searches without warrants in specific circumstances)!!!
To date only two cases have been brought before federal courts to decide the Constiutionality of "warranteless wiretaps" after FISA -- United States v. Duggan 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir., 1984) and United States v. Nicholson 955 F.Supp. 588 (Va. 1997). Both courts flatly rejected claims that warrantless wiretaps violated the Constitution.
Now to explain how FISA works there is a 3-judge court that decides whether warrants are necessary.
What is most amazing about the ignorance and absolute mischaracterization of the article cited above is that the special review court for FISA--the very same court that would ultimately review the issuance of warrantless wiretaps after the fact--has already stated (In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002) that “[A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information . . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.".
That's all the courts that have decided it!!!! They have all held that any attempt to restrict the President's power to use warrantless wiretaps would violate the Constitution. Maybe some liberal who thinks the use of warrantless wiretaps violates the Constitution can explain to me why or how--clue me and the rest of the federal judiciary in on the problem here because I am totally missing it.
I think what people need to do is read that last full paragraph above (the FISA court decision) over and over and over and over and over until it sinks through that the Consitution envisions 3 separate and equal branches of government. And while liberals absolutely despise the fact that Bush has any power at all, if they really do have a concern for the Consitution, then they should be concerned that the Office of the President has had its Constiutional Powers encroached on by Congress, not the other way around--that is legislative fact! Remember that's the "Office of the President" not Bush. Bush wasn't born yet when the Framers decided to have 3 equal branches (maybe if they had envisioned him or Slick Willie getting his noodle yanked they would have thought differently, but we have to work with what they wrote)--that serves a valuable purpose--one we've existed quite nicely with for 200 plus years until liberals decided they didn't like it and that Congress and the Courts should actually have more power than the President.
If you don't like the President's Constitutional Power--write your Congressman and ask that a Constitutional Amendment be passed. But in the meantime, I will defend the Constiution of the United States as its presently written, I will continue to honor the letter of the law and the sanctity of Constution no matter who gets elected President--even if the Wicked Witch of the East liberals all love so much comes riding into the White House on her broomstick. Its probaly the only thing she's had between her legs since Monica Lewinsky strolled around the Oral, aahhhh, I mean Oval Office.
So--people--stop reading stupid editorials--you'd be better off listening to Fox News or better yet Fox Mulder. Just because some pinheaded liberal types something up on the Internet doesn't make it so.
This has been Constitutional Law 101, Lesson 1--more to come.
Now as step 1 in Mulder's Constiutional Law class, first--read this article:
"Senate Votes to Expand Spy Powers"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/us/13fisa.html?hp
Of course its from the Grey Rag and it uses explosive emotional language with little in the way of actual legal analysis or facts. Words in the title itself "Spy Powers" gets liberals blood boiling before they even read one word of the article--essentially by implication it suggests that Bush has developed a "new" program of wiretapping without warrants and flat out implies it violates the Constitution. It does not.
Let's take a look at the actual legislation and the Act discussed in the article in a little detail:
The article cited is referring primarily to FISA (Foriegn Intelligence Surveillance Act), which dates back to 1978--long before the Patriot Act--and long before Bush took office. Niether the Patriot Act nor FISA gave Bush or any president the power to use warrantless wiretaps-- the Constution gave it to him 200 plus years ago (not wiretaps because phones didn't exist, but the power to conduct searches without warrants in specific circumstances)!!!
To date only two cases have been brought before federal courts to decide the Constiutionality of "warranteless wiretaps" after FISA -- United States v. Duggan 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir., 1984) and United States v. Nicholson 955 F.Supp. 588 (Va. 1997). Both courts flatly rejected claims that warrantless wiretaps violated the Constitution.
Now to explain how FISA works there is a 3-judge court that decides whether warrants are necessary.
What is most amazing about the ignorance and absolute mischaracterization of the article cited above is that the special review court for FISA--the very same court that would ultimately review the issuance of warrantless wiretaps after the fact--has already stated (In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002) that “[A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information . . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.".
That's all the courts that have decided it!!!! They have all held that any attempt to restrict the President's power to use warrantless wiretaps would violate the Constitution. Maybe some liberal who thinks the use of warrantless wiretaps violates the Constitution can explain to me why or how--clue me and the rest of the federal judiciary in on the problem here because I am totally missing it.
I think what people need to do is read that last full paragraph above (the FISA court decision) over and over and over and over and over until it sinks through that the Consitution envisions 3 separate and equal branches of government. And while liberals absolutely despise the fact that Bush has any power at all, if they really do have a concern for the Consitution, then they should be concerned that the Office of the President has had its Constiutional Powers encroached on by Congress, not the other way around--that is legislative fact! Remember that's the "Office of the President" not Bush. Bush wasn't born yet when the Framers decided to have 3 equal branches (maybe if they had envisioned him or Slick Willie getting his noodle yanked they would have thought differently, but we have to work with what they wrote)--that serves a valuable purpose--one we've existed quite nicely with for 200 plus years until liberals decided they didn't like it and that Congress and the Courts should actually have more power than the President.
If you don't like the President's Constitutional Power--write your Congressman and ask that a Constitutional Amendment be passed. But in the meantime, I will defend the Constiution of the United States as its presently written, I will continue to honor the letter of the law and the sanctity of Constution no matter who gets elected President--even if the Wicked Witch of the East liberals all love so much comes riding into the White House on her broomstick. Its probaly the only thing she's had between her legs since Monica Lewinsky strolled around the Oral, aahhhh, I mean Oval Office.
So--people--stop reading stupid editorials--you'd be better off listening to Fox News or better yet Fox Mulder. Just because some pinheaded liberal types something up on the Internet doesn't make it so.
This has been Constitutional Law 101, Lesson 1--more to come.
I agree though, I do find it funny how any argument has to be strereotypical liberals v republicans. There are thousands of different views and I dont agree fully with either side. I have a lot of liberal views and also some very conservative views. I dont think some people can cope with a debate unless they can pigeon hole their opponent.
