 vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | reply to Fatal Vector
Re: WELLLLLLLLL... You need a lesson in civics - a Supreme Court interpertation of a constitutional principle is not reversible by statute, only constitutional amendment. Otherwise abortion (that was a SCOTUS interpertation) could (and would) have been reversed by congress.
On the other hand, a Supreme Court interpertation of STATUTORY LAW is reversible by updating the statute or overruling it with a new one.
The courts, in the wiretapping case until now, have never said the president was violating the constitution, they said he was violating statutory law (FISA Act). This is the first step to changing that law to bring the president in complaince, but there could still be constitutional challenges. |
1 edit | It wasn't given to us as a constitutional interpretation. It was a interpretation of old telecom laws used to give the american public the privacy (read: check and ballances) they desired from government/law enforcement/corporate spying.
Perhaps it's you who needs a lesson in civics? Especially since you essentially agree with what I said, but seemed compelled to draw a needless distinction to assert I was wrong somehow?
And what "constitutional" challenge is there to the executive (the PROPER term to use, instead of "the president") branches actions in this case? There is NO basis for a constitutional challenge here. Otherwise it would have been brought by now.
The "right" to privacy, such as it is, is only what the government has given the public in statutes, because the public demanded them. There is no "right" to privacy in the constitution, except for ones person, papers, and home. |
