1 edit | reply to amigo_boy
Re: All the disputed requests for anti-terrorism And it was illegal then, just as it should be now regardless of what the industry purchased and our president did to try to cover their backsides.
There were laws in place they were to follow that granted them the ability to do what they did with oversight (start the tap and get a warrant within X time). This is the same oversight that is incorporated into the very foundation of our constitution (3 branches) to help prevent corruption and power distortion. They ignored that law and then passed another one saying it was OK to ignore that law. Sorry that distortion of power does not fly regardless of what you nutz think. If what they did was legal than there was no basis on creating another law to shield the industry from invading the privacy of millions of people. The shear fact they had to pass another law shows they were in the wrong and know they were in the wrong. |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by Skippy25:There were laws in place they were to follow that granted them the ability to do what they did with oversight ... 1. The Executive Branch has an inherent power to conduct surveillance. The branches of government being co-equal, the Legislative Branch cannot legislate away that power. It can only create a framework for the Executive Branch to operate within for foreseen needs.
2. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) is a recognition of that inherent Executive power, and Congress's recognition of it (outside Congress's framework). Furthermore, the Congressional debates over FISA show that Congress feared that it could legislate too far, and be found unconstitutional. Leading to this clause of 2511.
3. The recent Congress reaffirmed this intent when it used 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) as the basis for so-called "immunity."
4. The recent Congress reaffirmed the President's claim that its framework didn't accommodate new, unforeseen needs when it revised FISA with the Patriot Act.
That's how Constitutional government works. All I hear is a bunch of misinformed people (who read imbalanced blogs), complaining about how the government should follow a constitution that doesn't exist. And, they're too lazy to amend the Constitution to be what they say it should be.
Mark |
|
|
|
| I think you're confusing a constitutional government with a monarchy. You must be one of John Yoo's best students. |
|
