kallend 2,184 #1 February 19, 2008 www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1925683320080219 Apparently if an administration takes any action, no matter how illegal, in SECRET, then no-one can appeal to a court to have it stopped because they can't prove (on account of the secrecy) that they have been affected by it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #2 February 19, 2008 Quote"The president is bound by the laws that Congress enacts. He may disagree with those laws, but he may not disobey them," Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, There's an accurate statement. QuoteThe high court's action means that Bush will be able to disregard whatever legislative eavesdropping restrictions Congress adopts as there will be no meaningful judicial review, the ACLU attorneys said. Unless Congress passes a law giving standing to individuals or groups. Admittedly, people are in a catch-22. They can only sue if they know they've been wiretapped. They cannot find out if they've been wiretapped unless they sue. I guess the President should go about changing that law. Oh, wait. Presidents don't write laws. Congress does. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #3 February 19, 2008 >I guess the President should go about changing that law. What law? Are you talking about what the president (and his justice department) actually DOES, or what the law says they can do? If you are talking about the former, sorry - that's classified. Terrorism and all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #4 February 19, 2008 It seems the good Professor doesn't have a problem with gov't invasion of privacy as long as it's for a cause he supports...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #5 February 19, 2008 Quote>I guess the President should go about changing that law. What law? Are you talking about what the president (and his justice department) actually DOES, or what the law says they can do? If you are talking about the former, sorry - that's classified. Terrorism and all. No, I'm talking about Congress adding to Title 28 of the United States Code to make the claims justiciable. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #6 February 19, 2008 QuoteQuote>I guess the President should go about changing that law. What law? Are you talking about what the president (and his justice department) actually DOES, or what the law says they can do? If you are talking about the former, sorry - that's classified. Terrorism and all. No, I'm talking about Congress adding to Title 28 of the United States Code to make the claims justiciable. I'm surprised at the lack of interest in this. It goes beyond party affiliation; under this decision ANY administration, Dem or GOP or other, can violate the people's rights as long as they keep it secret whose rights are being violated.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #7 February 19, 2008 QuoteIt goes beyond party affiliation; There is nothing in Speakers Corner that is beyond party affiliation for certain posters ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #8 February 19, 2008 QuoteI'm surprised at the lack of interest in this. It goes beyond party affiliation; under this decision ANY administration, Dem or GOP or other, can violate the people's rights as long as they keep it secret whose rights are being violated. Absolutely! We have seen how the Bush presidency has used the left-wing, big-government, progressive, enlightened, "mainstrean" living-document Commerce Clause jurisprudence do do shit just like this! You think Bush is basing his wiretapping on Constitutional Amendments? Hell, no. He is basing it upon the Commerce Clause, which, thanks to the stacked courts have found that there is not an activity that anyone can do, behind closed doors, that does not have a cumulative effect on interstate commerce. Therefore, it can be regulated. The Bush administration is a PRIME example of how the enemy can usurp your techniques and use them against you. It wasn't until FDR that the government could do the shit its doing - thanks to him threatening to stack the court. Now, all of these procedurally dubious, yet "politically mainstream" ideas have established the procedurally dubious mechanism as valid. Thus, leading to the unchecked ability to do whatever the fuck they want. From a post I made two years ago, here's how the left's arguments about "the living breathing Constitution" can be used (and has been used.) ***I will form these policies as acceptable under the "living, breathing Constitution." So, "Terrorism is war declared by nationless people. Such a matter was not contemplated by our founding fathers in the Constitution. Therefore, in order to preserve this union, Bush is using powers inherent as the Commander in Chief to provide for the general welfare of the people. In that sense, martial law is warranted, considering that the protection of the American public is sancrosanct. It used to be that Americans were expected to fend for themselves. However, considering the rise in the federal government and the vast expansions of its power pursuant to the will of the people, the COnstitution must be viewed consistent with these new societal developments. The Commernce clause allows the government to regulate any conduct that has any effect on interstate commerce. The new law, passed via the commerce clause, ensures that anyone who utilizes public transportation routes or interstate communications equipment waives constitutional rights to warrantless searches. Thus, anyone who uses a telephone, receives mail, or even proceeds outside of their houses, waives these rights. Therefore, considering the commerce clause jurisprudence of the last 70 years, it seems a logical extension of federal powers to do so. So, we can see that warrantless searches are allowable under the commerce clause. The founding fathers did not consider telecommunications, and therefore we can create our own laws about it." How 'bout them apples, brought to you courtesy of FDR and his progeny... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #9 February 19, 2008 QuoteQuoteIt goes beyond party affiliation; There is nothing in Speakers Corner that is beyond party affiliation for certain posters ... Bah! Beat me to it!Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #10 February 19, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt goes beyond party affiliation; There is nothing in Speakers Corner that is beyond party affiliation for certain posters ... Bah! Beat me to it! So how do you feel about President Hillary Clinton having such powers as the SCOTUS has just affirmed?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
