It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
AFP - President Barack Obama's administration is urging the Supreme Court not to take up the first case it has received on controversial National Security Agency cybersnooping.
US government attorneys argue that the Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to take the case, filed in July by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).
The US administration also believes the EIPC suit cannot move forward because it argues the court lacks authority under the 2001 Patriot Act to weigh in on the legality of NSA activities. "This court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," the secret intelligence affairs court, Verrilli added.
The Patriot Act of 2001 only allows challenges from businesses that receive government orders to turn over business records or from the U.S. government.
links234
The people bringing the issue to the court are argued that they don't have standing because
The Patriot Act of 2001 only allows challenges from businesses that receive government orders to turn over business records or from the U.S. government.
They also didn't bother going through the lower courts and went straight to the Supreme Court.
To be completely honest, I don't think the SCOTUS will hear the argument. Not because they're secret tyrannical monsters under the bed, but because they will probably agree with the DOJ that, under the law, the party has no jurisdiction.
More info here and here.
The people bringing the issue to the court are argued that they don't have standing because
The Patriot Act of 2001 only allows challenges from businesses that receive government orders to turn over business records or from the U.S. government.
They also didn't bother going through the lower courts and went straight to the Supreme Court.
To be completely honest, I don't think the SCOTUS will hear the argument. Not because they're secret tyrannical monsters under the bed, but because they will probably agree with the DOJ that, under the law, the party has no jurisdiction.
links234
The people bringing the issue to the court are argued that they don't have standing because
The Patriot Act of 2001 only allows challenges from businesses that receive government orders to turn over business records or from the U.S. government.
They also didn't bother going through the lower courts and went straight to the Supreme Court.
To be completely honest, I don't think the SCOTUS will hear the argument. Not because they're secret tyrannical monsters under the bed, but because they will probably agree with the DOJ that, under the law, the party has no jurisdiction.
More info here and here.
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices. ad_icon What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no. Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW — These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
The unique position of the Supreme Court stems, in large part, from the deep commitment of the American people to the Rule of Law and to constitutional government. The United States has demonstrated an unprecedented determination to preserve and protect its written Constitution, thereby providing the American "experiment in democracy" with the oldest written Constitution still in force.
The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society’s need for order and the individual’s right to freedom.
To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government.
The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.
elouina
Double post yet again... Oh gosh, I need a new mouse along with a new government.
And one more thing... The majority of the American populace is clueless to such matters. But maybe if I tell you, you will tell two friends, then they will tell two friends, and so on and so on...edit on 19-10-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)