NEWS: Cheney Defends Domestic Spying

Originally posted by dawnstar
what it amounts to is that the president should be above the laws, whatever ones he feels are in is way....except of course, if the transgression of these laws involve a cute little intern...then they should be a capitol offense.

I can't believe that Cheney brought up one of the grossest abuses of those powers as he tried to justify Bush claiming them! ya, he should have the right to wiretap whoever he wishes, with no oversight, then the republican party can wiretap those who stand in their way and well...remain in power forever.

the president broke the laws!!! many laws, in many different areas. every danged time, he cites national defense as the justification. let me ask you something.......if a president can place himself above the laws by simply starting a war, isn't that one heck of an incentive to start wars to begin with?

he could have tapped any international call, without informing anyone for close to a half of month before he even had to try to justify it to anyone. but, that infringed on this great power he feels he has, he shouldn't have to justify his actions to anyone. what a crock!

As of yet, no laws have been broken. Believe me, if there was another attack in America equal to 9/11, and it could have been averted by a "wiretap", people would be complaining as they are now, if not more-so.

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
"....I'm getting pretty tired of excuses based on " A Time of War" and the extreme measures this administration has taken to undermine the separtion of powers and the Constitution.
THIS president's war powers should be revoked!"

REPLY: Sorry. it's the Constitution.

"..... He and his cronys lied to involve the U.S. in an avoidable military conflict.
Congress voted to allow " emergency powers " after 9/11.

REPLY: Geez.. there's links galore about Saddam having WMD's, and his ties with Al Queda. What did he lie about?

".... It was not meant to be a permanent authority to ignore or circumvent consitutional guidelines.

REPLY: Permanent? We're still at war, 'ya know.

"The War On Terror" was created to justify trillions in military and security industrial spending."

REPLY: Ask the 12 million+ in Iraq who voted if they believe you on that, or the millions in Afghanistan; or the families of the childrens prisons and victims of the rape rooms in Iraq.

".... It might as well be a permanent state of war against people who do bad stuff."

REPLY: It's a war against those who have made their religion a "politic", and it will last as long as it takes for people to realise that.

".... 9/11 was a criminal act and should have been dealt with as a criminal act."

REPLY: No, it was most definately NOT a "criminal" act. To be so it would have hd to be commited by legal Americans.

".... but the actual War In Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11."

REPLY: Do a Google on the "mother of all connections."

Originally posted by TONE23
no offense jsobacky but it was ONLY a BJ. His infidelity was between ONLY him and HIS WIFE not any of the rest of us.
:
And to say that Clinton was worse than Nixon(because of a BJ) is absurd.

Well, it was a very personal affair, no doubt, but I expect better from our CIC. But, that's just me.

Originally posted by marg6043
I have always suspect like many here that Mr.Cheney is the one with the brains while Mr. Bush just tag alone.

So I can only imagine that Mr. Cheney may have been the one with the idea and then he may had come out with a way to justified it.

marg, you bring up some good points. But I wonder why people dislike him so much? He is our VPOTUS, a heartbeat away. The only thing I have ever heard anyone try to pin on him is Halliburton, which is not fair at all, since it happened before he took office.

He seems to be a very strong man, strong-willed, and unfairly lambasted. I still support him 100%.

He is exactly the kind of man I would want in case of a succession of power, esp. during these times. GWB did well in picking him as his running mate.

[edit on 19-6-2006 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by TONE23
no offense jsobacky but it was ONLY a BJ. His infidelity was between ONLY him and HIS WIFE not any of the rest of us.
:
And to say that Clinton was worse than Nixon(because of a BJ) is absurd.

Well, it was a very personal affair, no doubt, but I expect better from our CIC. But, that's just me.

I quite agree jsobecky, I would also expect more from all of our leaders; especially the CIC. Unfortunately, reality has often dictated quite the opposite.

Even more Unfortunately is the reality that Mr. Cheney is a big part of the afformentioned reality. Either Mr. Cheney is ignorant of alot of the teachings of our forefathers; or, he just doesnt care about the constitution. One does not reach the level of power both; in the business and political arenas, by being ignorant and uneducated. He could honestly think he is doing the right thing. But what is the point of saving us if our constitution is dead? The life of the constitution is more important than my own life. I would rather get killed by a terrorist and have our nations most beloved document thrive; then to have my life protected while our constitution struggles for breath.

The fact that I have nothing to hide from the govt is irrelevant. I have a right to be secure in my persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

As Jimmy Cliff said "Id rather be a free man in my grave; than alive and a slave."
also New Hampshire-"Live Free or die!"

Sure the hammer hasnt dropped yet. We are not living under martial law. But, allowing things like circumvention of our laws sets a dangerous precident, that places us on a path of that, however virtuous our intent, will destroy our core reason for our way of life; the constitution.

thank you for your time

Surely it's obvious that the comparisons to Watergate are refering to what happened after the whole scandal broke. How else could that possibly be interpreted. He's saying that because of Watergate some laws were changed, but now those changes are a problem. Whether anyone agrees on that is irrelevent to how it's interpreted, there's no suggestion at all there that that episode was that kind of good old days.

If you were going to think so maybe bear in mind that Dick was on the staff of the next President to come in after Nixon - so one logical conclusion there would be that he was saying it was better before he had to go work there, 'the good old days before I worked at the Whitehouse'.


In terms of spying / electronic communications monitoring, it does come down to individual discretion. You have to hope, like in all cases of everything, that people won't be unreasonable and will only flag things that really do seem to be (in this case) plans to do 9-11 type of stuff. If it's any help, here in Europe we've been monitored by Echelon for ages, I've known all my life that all electronic communications by default are monitored. It doesn't seem to be in use for catching people smoking a joint for example - who wants to do things like that are not at those levels of monitoring. I think we can agree that if it weren't for evil laws such as what outlaws things like cannabis, then only people who actually are planning to blow up other people would be worried - the reason loads of people are worried is because there are evil laws in place that could wrongly deem them criminals.

I also fully appreciate how while it's easy to complain about the spying, folks may not want to say why. And yes that is a huge problem because it makes people automaticly have to distrust the state and all authority and they are doing nothing wrong.


Anyway I thought this was funny,


www.whitehouse.org...

Originally posted by TONE23
Even more Unfortunately is the reality that Mr. Cheney is a big part of the afformentioned reality. Either Mr. Cheney is ignorant of alot of the teachings of our forefathers; or, he just doesnt care about the constitution. One does not reach the level of power both; in the business and political arenas, by being ignorant and uneducated. He could honestly think he is doing the right thing. But what is the point of saving us if our constitution is dead? The life of the constitution is more important than my own life. I would rather get killed by a terrorist and have our nations most beloved document thrive; then to have my life protected while our constitution struggles for breath.

I don't think Mr. Cheney is ignorant, nor do I think he doesn't care about the Constitution.

The Constitution grants certain unquestioned powers to the President. What happens is, people don't like that fact, and ultimately allege that our liberties are being taken away.

Look back thru history and see what other President's have done under the War Powers Act. Bush has not overstepped his bounds, imo. Cheney is merely re-inforcing this sentiment.

Bush is doing his best to keep us safe. Many deny the seriousness of that threat; I personally think it is because they have been lulled into a false sense of security, due to Bush's vigilance.

Our Constitution is not dead. It is alive and kicking. The fact that we can have this debate attests to that fact.

We will continue to question when Bush seems to push the limits of the Constitution. But we have not lost any liberties.

ok lets break this down.. a point at a time.

original quote by:jsobecky
I don't think Mr. Cheney is ignorant, nor do I think he doesn't care about the Constitution.

Of course you dont silly... I went on in my statement to dissmiss both of these two. The third possibility was that he genuinely thinks he is doing the right thing.
That, after a long time of denial on my own part, is what I have come to realize.
My objections are not in his intent; but rather, his methods. To me those 'means'; in this case domestic spying; do not justify the 'ends'.

original quote by:jsobecky
The Constitution grants certain unquestioned powers to the President. What happens is, people don't like that fact, and ultimately allege that our liberties are being taken away.

lets take a look at exactly what powers the president is granted that are relevant to the topic at hand. Honestly, I have not yet taken any kind of in depth look for myself so I readily accept my guilt in the latter part of your statement.

* NOTE:My source site for All of the following is: US Constitution.net

Article II - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President
Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress
Section 4 - Disqualification

Section 1-The President This section deals with election of; Time of office held; and replacement of said office. the only part relevant in section one that I could find was this:

"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."

now there are three Amendments in the first section.
Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President. -This clearly is not relevant to the topic.
Amendment 20 - Presidential, Congressional Terms. -Again nothing relevant.
Amendment 25 - Presidential Disability and Succession -Also nothing concerning this matter

OK thats the first section and the score is: Constitution 1;Presidential powers 0.

Section 2 -Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

Granted this gives the President power over the military and also to grant pardons; it does not hold any authority in our specified topic: Domestic spying.
So the score remainsConstitution 1; Presidential powers 0.

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

The part I put in bold type is the only thing in section three that I again see as relevant.

so after 3 of the four sections I see it as:
Constitution 2;Presidential powers 0.

ok last section.
Section 4 - Disqualification Ok suffice it to say this section has nothing that goes one way or the other.

Well thats all four sections pertaining to the presidential powers as far as the constitutions is concerned. It appears as though defending the constitution wins 2 to 0 over presidential power to ovverride it. But alas, we are but far from finished arent we?
lets see if there are any relevant Amendments.

Fourth Amendment
this one we have covered and it clearly is not granting the Executive branch any power here.
Fifth Amendment
This say we cannot be prosocuted with due process.

And as I have read the rest of the 27 Amendments Nothing says in it that the President can Suspend or circumvent our Constitution.

original quote by:jsobecky
Look back thru history and see what other President's have done under the War Powers Act. Bush has not overstepped his bounds, imo. Cheney is merely re-inforcing this sentiment.

Like I said before when A president circumvents or outright contradicts the constitution it sets a dangerous precident. It convinces people that since someone did it before its ok to do it now...Absolutely not acceptable
But lets take a look at the War Powers act shall we

Firstly remember that the WPA of 1973 is not an Amendment to the constitution. And any laws in said act that violate any of the Constitution or Amendments should be illegal. That being said.

*note: The following source for the War powers act 0f 1973 was obtained at:Indiana.edu

The War Powers Act of 1973
Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973
Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

I will continue this in my next post as I am running out of Characters. Please wait to respond until I finish if you could Jsobecky as I am only at "Half-Time", in response to your post. Thank you
:

Ill pick up where I left off...

I was at the War Powers Act of 1973 when I ran out of time.

SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

CONSULTATION

SEC. 3.
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

After reading the entire document I cannot for the life of me find where it gives the President/Vice. the authority to Circumvent and suspend the constitution. And as is documented in SEC 2(A). that the desires of this act are NOT in contradiction of the Constitution.

Now lets fast foward 5 years and the creation of the FISA ACT of 1978

In which it goes to great lengths to ensure that the Govt MUST obtain warrants and even lets the govt back log it 72 hours. But it nowhere implys that it is to be circumvented or ignored. FACT.

orginal quote by:jsobecky
Bush is doing his best to keep us safe. Many deny the seriousness of that threat; I personally think it is because they have been lulled into a false sense of security, due to bush's vigilance

Read Ben Franklins quote on my sig. Without freedom there is nothing worth protecting! We are never SECURE.. never were and never will be. Security is an unattainable illusion. I didnt put bens quote in my sig just cause it sounds good. It is the undeniable truth.

I didnt say the constitution is dead I said it is struggling for breath. My meaning implying the state of current affairs has put a tremendous strain on our Constitution. Take your pick of topic in that regard and that is another debate we could go on. But this pertains directly to DOMESTIC SPYING. Something that our laws are quite specific about.

Thank you for your time

Originally posted by Nygdan
Waitaminute, so he thinks that after the 'imperial presidency' of nixon, when congress curtailed some of the powers of the office of the president, that that was bad, and that basically him and Bush are acting to restore those powers.

Um. Thats, de facto, illegal. He disgaress with Congresses restriction on presidential powers, so he is ignoring those restrictions.

Thats illegal.

If this is true, and depending upon the specifics of course, we might have an actual "constitutional crisis".

Thank You Nygdan you pretty much said exactly what I was about to "constitutional crisis".


ps- to the person who made the comment about wanting some one to push cheney off the ladder of power, may I suggest we just break the ladder and watch all those power hungry 'I want to be on top' greedy politicians fall of.

Originally posted by zappafan1
Originally posted by Gools

"....after having approved a wiretap program without a court order two years earlier?"

REPLY: A president does not have the authority to "approve" such a policy. For what it's worth, FISA, itself, is un-Constitutional, as it puts a roadblock in front of a presidents Constitutional obligations and duties in times of war.

Edit for content



[edit on 11-6-2006 by zappafan1]

hey zappa so what your telling me is that you want to give the president unimpaired powers til the collapse of the United States? Because unless we stop the war on terror thats how long it will be till.
Back in the day, when wars were clear cut between 2 nations, it was a bit different. Now you have a war against an ideal, that will last forever as long as people are thinking....THATS IT! Your fighting the war on people who think for themselves, well if thats the case then your doing a great job at home (except for some who still do thank god).

Would you have allowed this president to have these powers if it were the war on drugs? Thats a war too, and he deserves his wartime powers. From now on the act should include "War is between 2 or more countries engaging in physical conflicts." because if it isn't physical, then how do you prove if you even beat it?

Originally posted by jsobecky
Yes, he is right up there, but not as bad as Clinton, who threw away all shreds of decency by luring those less fortunate to satisfy his carnal needs.

"Only a bj ". What happened to loyalty and fidelity to your spouse? As well as an example to our youth?

Remember, when you condone Clinton's actions, you are saying that it is OK for your husband/wife to commit adultery.

Is that the kind of society you want?

wow josbecky you aren't serious...you simply cant be. If you are then I think I may have lost reason to read your posts anymore. Do you even remember what Nixon did?? Yea I don't like clinton and I think he was a shame, but if you try to tell me that Nixon wasn't as bad as clinton then Im going to throw up my lunch.

Decency?!?! Decency?!?!? This guy threw every bit of "decency" away when it comes to the american peoples trust. There wasnt a shread of decency in this guy, thats why he resigned, and the president taking his place didnt have a shread of decency either by letting Nixon, probably would have been convicted as a criminal, off the hook.

Yea lets talk about loyalty, to a nation. These guys didnt commit adultry, they betrayed the entire country of trust in the government. If I were to talk about whos the bigger shame, Id have to go with the guy who was part of watergate. Im not defending clinton, but to say nixon wasnt as bad is just absurd.

BUT anyway jsobecky, WHY did you even bring clinton into this, or was this just a blatent attempt to attack the former president again because you dont want to focus on the current one?

[edit on 19-6-2006 by grimreaper797]

Originally posted by zappafan1
As of yet, no laws have been broken. Believe me, if there was another attack in America equal to 9/11, and it could have been averted by a "wiretap", people would be complaining as they are now, if not more-so.

Ok zappa we could also prevent another 9/11 by making scheduled work times, scheduled leasure times for certain people to be allowed out of the house. Everybody would have a badge that would have ALL there information on it, and If you didnt have a badge you would be arrested without any question and taken to a secure location for interrogation.

Now yes that would be much safer, but tell me do you agree with that? Remember this would prevent a 9/11 ALOT more then any wiretapping program ever could/

Why can't I comment on the state of the tagging of this thread?

I'll try again, since my post is still missing upon second reload of this page....


whoever tagged this thread with the Aerosmith song line can't even spell Cheney. And they probably got points for tagging it.

[edit on 19-6-2006 by ed 209]

from TONE23
I will continue this in my next post as I am running out of Characters. Please wait to respond until I finish if you could Jsobecky as I am only at "Half-Time", in response to your post. Thank you

Yes, I'll gladly wait, since trying to digest everything you've said is like trying to drink from a fire hose. But, please be patient for my reply, since other things are now occupying my time. Grrrr...! Life gets in the way of posting...

On first glance, tho, you bring up some very good points.

Originally posted by jsobecky

from TONE23
I will continue this in my next post as I am running out of Characters. Please wait to respond until I finish if you could Jsobecky as I am only at "Half-Time", in response to your post. Thank you

Yes, I'll gladly wait, since trying to digest everything you've said is like trying to drink from a fire hose.

But, please be patient for my reply, since other things are now occupying my time. Grrrr...! Life gets in the way of posting...

On first glance, tho, you bring up some very good points.

take your time

And I was able to get both posts done in time for them to be connected

BTW:final constitutional score was Constitution 2;Presidential powers 0. as it pertained to the relavent topic. The 2nd part of the post was about LAWS that were NOT constitutional Amendments hence I stopped the scoring after the conclusion of the Constitutional segment.

thanks and I hope this makes it a little clearer.

Originally posted by TONE23
Section 2 -Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

Granted this gives the President power over the military and also to grant pardons; it does not hold any authority in our specified topic: Domestic spying.

Not saying I buy the argument, but it seems to me you've glossed over the argument the other side makes regarding this particular Executive Branch section, particularly the Commander in Chief designation.

What is argued is that this power includes doing what is necessary to, as the Preamble says, ..."provide for the common defense..." Part of the CinC power is to collect intelligence regarding this particular aspect of the Executive's responsibility.

Of course, the argument is whether or not this in fact violates the Fourth Amendment. Remember, the 4th Amendment protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures..." So, what is "unreasonable?

Originally posted by TONE23
Now lets fast foward 5 years and the creation of the FISA ACT of 1978

In which it goes to great lengths to ensure that the Govt MUST obtain warrants and even lets the govt back log it 72 hours. But it nowhere implys that it is to be circumvented or ignored. FACT.

The thinking is that the FISA act overstepped the bounds of Congressional power. Just because Congress enacts a bill, that certainly in no way automatically means that the President (or the Judiciary) absolutely must follow it. For example, what if the Congress were to enact a bill that abolishes the Executive Branch and confiscates the White House for use as a museum? Does that mean that the President has to immediately start packing up and be out by the end of the week? Does it mean that the President and Congress both have to wait on a ruling from the Supreme Court before they can act on (or against) such a bill? I'd say no to both. Otherwise, a particularly partisan Congress could (theoretically) tie up the president with hundreds of bills that usurp Executive power and the Executive couldn't do anything about it until the Supreme Court ruled.

Interestingly, the FISA bill does contain some language that could possibly be used to justify the domestic spying activity that Cheney was talking about - that activity of surveillance on overseas calls:

(a)(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the
Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a
court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence
information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General
certifies in writing under oath that -
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at -
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications
transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between
or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2),
or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than
the spoken communications of individuals, from property or
premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign
power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this
title;

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance
will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United
States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such
surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under
section 1801(h) of this title; and

if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and
any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at
least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the
Attorney General determines immediate action is required and
notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures
and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

From your FISA link

Of course, that section specifically says "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party..."

Also of course, the Executive would certainly not try to use FISA to support their argument, it is the FISA bill itself that they believe to be unconstitutional.

But the FISA bill dates back to a time when phones were pretty darned permanent. The idea of "surveillance" on a phone conversation meant something different back then as well. Today, calls can be monitored without a single human ear getting involved. I suspect that it is this sort of thing that is occuring. Since this sort of activity was not anticipated in the FISA bill, it could be argued that the bill needs to be updated, which is what many in Congress are saying when they deplore the fact that the Administration is not providing them with enough info on the surveillance program. They say they need to know more about it in order to update the law to fix the obsolete portions. I can't say I disagree with them either.

Anyway, based on the powers executed by previous Executives in this area, I believe the argument is that this sort of curtailing of Executive CinC power is unconstitutional. That is, an amendment to the Constitution would be required for the Executive power to be reduced in this manner.

Don't know if I buy it, like I said. But merely posting a link to Article II Section 2 and then stating that it has nothing to do with the topic is oversimplifying the argument. After all, there are a great many things we take for granted today that cannot be found explicitly stated in the Constitution (privacy, for example. Abortion is another, related, example.)

Using your method, I could say that no telephone call is protected by the fourth Amendment, since I don't see the word "telephone" in the wording of same.

Harte

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Do you even remember what Nixon did??

Yes I do, and I remember the times. Who brought an end to the VietNam war?

Yea I don't like clinton and I think he was a shame, but if you try to tell me that Nixon wasn't as bad as clinton then Im going to throw up my lunch.

Nixon, tho misguided, was acting out of political motives, none of them against the American public. Clinton was just too weak to be a decent person.

Yea lets talk about loyalty, to a nation. These guys didnt commit adultry, they betrayed the entire country of trust in the government.

No they didn't. It was pure survival politics, and they got caught. And he did the right thing by resigning. Today's politicians (Jefferson and McKinney) would do well to take a lesson from him.

from grimreaper797
BUT anyway jsobecky, WHY did you even bring clinton into this, or was this just a blatent attempt to attack the former president again because you dont want to focus on the current one?

Read the entire thread, grimreaper, and you'll see that I have addressed the current issue.

Harte, thanks for your reply.

original quote by:Harte
What is argued is that this power includes doing what is necessary to, as the Preamble says, ..."provide for the common defense..." Part of the CinC power is to collect intelligence regarding this particular aspect of the Executive's responsibility.

I completely understand this arguement. And while it is important to "provide for the common defense" he cannot do so in a manner which is contrary to the laws of the Constitution. My opinion, as unimportant as it is, feels that the massive collection of Americans electronic data is not consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

original quote by:Harte
Of course, the argument is whether or not this in fact violates the Fourth Amendment. Remember, the 4th Amendment protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures..." So, what is "unreasonable?

Good question. What is unreasonable is left to those in the position to implement they're interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. I am not one of those people; but, my interpretation would be that massive data mining would indeed violate the unreasonable clause of the Fourth Amendment.

original quote by:Harte
The thinking is that the FISA act overstepped the bounds of Congressional power. Just because Congress enacts a bill, that certainly in no way automatically means that the President (or the Judiciary) absolutely must follow it. For example, what if the Congress were to enact a bill that abolishes the Executive Branch and confiscates the White House for use as a museum? Does that mean that the President has to immediately start packing up and be out by the end of the week? Does it mean that the President and Congress both have to wait on a ruling from the Supreme Court before they can act on (or against) such a bill? I'd say no to both. Otherwise, a particularly partisan Congress could (theoretically) tie up the president with hundreds of bills that usurp Executive power and the Executive couldn't do anything about it until the Supreme Court ruled.

The problem with your example is this: that congress making up a bill that dissolves the executive cannot be implemented becauseit is a bill that would be contrary to the checks and balances already set up in the constitution. But isnt that what the bush Administration is doing by not getting warrants? He is circumventing the Judicial branch and thusly breaking the checks and balances of which our govt is bound to uphold. And you must admit that both the President and Mr. Cheney have made a concerted effort to impliment as much Executive authority. Hence bushes 750 signing statements.

Interestingly, the FISA bill does contain some language that could possibly be used to justify the domestic spying activity that Cheney was talking about - that activity of surveillance on overseas calls:

The issue at hand of course is not the international aspect. As far as the language in it

-STATUTE-
(a)(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the
Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a
court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence
information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General
certifies in writing under oath that -
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at -
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications
transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between
or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2),
or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than
the spoken communications of individuals, from property or
premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign
power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this
title;

in the very first line it says: "Not withstanding any other law" well the law of the land is the constitution. Unless Im wrong here?

original; quote by:Harte
Also of course, the Executive would certainly not try to use FISA to support their argument, it is the FISA bill itself that they believe to be unconstitutional.

That is part of the problem. This Act Impedes the goals of the Administration. And,
While I agree the FISA Act needs to be updated. It is NOT the right of the Administration to ignore the law in the interim. That is called breaking the law. And even our esteemed president is NOT above the law. Once the law is changed then its another matter entirely.

original quote by:Harte
Don't know if I buy it, like I said. But merely posting a link to Article II Section 2 and then stating that it has nothing to do with the topic is oversimplifying the argument. After all, there are a great many things we take for granted today that cannot be found explicitly stated in the Constitution (privacy, for example. Abortion is another, related, example.)

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2
Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

I honestly couldnt see anything relavent. If you do please show me anything you might see in here. thanks