Midnight - Constitution Wins 1 Over Big Bro
- Thread starter orangeblack&gold
- Start date
orangeblack&gold
500+ Posts
I appreciate T Dub's posts greatly on this thread. He sure did give it life! He also is a clear warning to maintain vigilance to those of us who believe the blood of our Patriots on battlefields throughout time and around the world was shed for upholding THE CONSTITUTION and our way of life.
Not the shredded version that many of our youth must believe is all there is. Nope, the Founding Fathers clearly defined that WE THE PEOPLE trump the Govt and they foresaw T Dubs down through history who would try to hand those rights back to the overreaching govt and tried their best to prevent that.
As a side note, when did Congress declare war on either Iraq or Afghanistan. Did I miss that? I think that Dr. Ron Paul submitted a bill to declare war on Iraq, but I don't think it got very far. Just curious. If War is somehow a pre-determinant for throwing the Constitution in a lockbox and ignoring it for a few years or a decade, then shouldn't we have it declared? Per The Constitution...
Not the shredded version that many of our youth must believe is all there is. Nope, the Founding Fathers clearly defined that WE THE PEOPLE trump the Govt and they foresaw T Dubs down through history who would try to hand those rights back to the overreaching govt and tried their best to prevent that.
As a side note, when did Congress declare war on either Iraq or Afghanistan. Did I miss that? I think that Dr. Ron Paul submitted a bill to declare war on Iraq, but I don't think it got very far. Just curious. If War is somehow a pre-determinant for throwing the Constitution in a lockbox and ignoring it for a few years or a decade, then shouldn't we have it declared? Per The Constitution...
Wulaw Horn
1,000+ Posts
Look-
you guys (at least the OP) seem to be implying that this act in some way violates our constitution. To channel the 14 year old valley girl, that's like, your opinion man.
The law was enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president. To the best of my knowledge the Supreme Courth hasn't had their crack at it yet.
I think that there is a bunch of hysterical overreacting by those happy to see this go away- anyone ok with the act is a *****- really?
I think that's way too harsh and definately demagoggery.
I say this as a more or less libertarian who would like to see the federal government do about 3 things
(Interstate highways, standing army and some manner of FDA b/c we can't do it ourselves as individuals) and in more or less every other area stay the hell out of my life.
I get the potential for abuse (hell I've read all the Ludlum books and listened to guys like Art Bell on the radio and some of the 9/11 wingnuts) and I don't like it, but I don't think that we are there.
Hell, aren't you lefties the ones that say GWB is an inept boob who can't implement anything right? Even if he wanted to I fail to believe that they are doing a bang up job of whatever the hell it is you are afraid of.
I think there is an element of chicken little alarmism on both sides here. We shouldn't be willing to surrender our freedoms whenever the terrorists say Booo. On the other hand, I think many of you who have your panties in such a twist are really freaking out way too early. You can scream UNCONSTITUTIONAL until your hearts content but until it actually goes before the court that's non-sense.
And, I'm just going to say, I wouldn't be shocked if there was a little bit of inquiry done as to how the court, as presently constituted, would feel about this bill- just saying, I bet there is a fair chance it would get upheld.
you guys (at least the OP) seem to be implying that this act in some way violates our constitution. To channel the 14 year old valley girl, that's like, your opinion man.
The law was enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president. To the best of my knowledge the Supreme Courth hasn't had their crack at it yet.
I think that there is a bunch of hysterical overreacting by those happy to see this go away- anyone ok with the act is a *****- really?
I think that's way too harsh and definately demagoggery.
I say this as a more or less libertarian who would like to see the federal government do about 3 things
(Interstate highways, standing army and some manner of FDA b/c we can't do it ourselves as individuals) and in more or less every other area stay the hell out of my life.
I get the potential for abuse (hell I've read all the Ludlum books and listened to guys like Art Bell on the radio and some of the 9/11 wingnuts) and I don't like it, but I don't think that we are there.
Hell, aren't you lefties the ones that say GWB is an inept boob who can't implement anything right? Even if he wanted to I fail to believe that they are doing a bang up job of whatever the hell it is you are afraid of.
I think there is an element of chicken little alarmism on both sides here. We shouldn't be willing to surrender our freedoms whenever the terrorists say Booo. On the other hand, I think many of you who have your panties in such a twist are really freaking out way too early. You can scream UNCONSTITUTIONAL until your hearts content but until it actually goes before the court that's non-sense.
And, I'm just going to say, I wouldn't be shocked if there was a little bit of inquiry done as to how the court, as presently constituted, would feel about this bill- just saying, I bet there is a fair chance it would get upheld.
triplehorn
2,500+ Posts
Wulaw - you're taking your eye off the ball.
Bush's tantrum isn't about keeping America safe, it's about covering his own *** from exposure of potential lawbreaking he authorized. He's trying to pretend that the expiration of this legislation without enacting a new program that contains retroactive telecom immunity puts us at greater risk, which is a bald faced lie.
Google the WaPo article on Qwest's Naccio and his refusal to cooperate with Bush programs that Qwest believed were illegal. These were potentially illegal programs for spying on Americans that were pitched by the White House in early 2001, well before the 9/11 attack. We know Qwest turned down hundreds of millions of dollars to go along, but did other telecoms take the money and look the other way?
That is what this is about.
.
Bush's tantrum isn't about keeping America safe, it's about covering his own *** from exposure of potential lawbreaking he authorized. He's trying to pretend that the expiration of this legislation without enacting a new program that contains retroactive telecom immunity puts us at greater risk, which is a bald faced lie.
Google the WaPo article on Qwest's Naccio and his refusal to cooperate with Bush programs that Qwest believed were illegal. These were potentially illegal programs for spying on Americans that were pitched by the White House in early 2001, well before the 9/11 attack. We know Qwest turned down hundreds of millions of dollars to go along, but did other telecoms take the money and look the other way?
That is what this is about.
.
washparkhorn
2,500+ Posts
Well said Wulaw.
The issue is a technology issue. Before "internets tubes" and fiber optics, our laws (and Constitution) clearly allowed our intelligence agencies to wiretap foreign targets over old telephone lines.
Now - thanks to modern technology - most of the world's communications pass through fiber optic and much of that fiber optic goes through the U.S.
Clearly, FISA (which was based on old technology) was not precise enough to handle the issue. At stake was whether interception of foreign communications which were the target of an investigation and which had been exempt from FISA when it was routed through old technology that didn't touch the U.S., now required FISA compliance because the fiber optic ran through the U.S.
The Bush Administration said it didn't require FISA court approval. After the Protect America law was passed (which exempted FISA court approval for these foreign communications), the Bush position had the weight of Congress behind it. The Protect America Law, however, sunset last week. A good argument could be made because Congress spoke on the issue and specifically put a provision in the law that sunset the legislation, all intercepts of foreign communication that run through fiber optic routed through the U.S. require FISA court approval.
If I haven't lost you yet, the issue is not whether that is wise. Congress believes those communications do not require FISA approval. They have legislation in the hopper that says that. They are disputing whether telecoms should be given immunity for cooperating with our intelligence agencies after 9/11 and before the Protect America Act (which codified no FISA court approval necessary for interception of foreign calls).
That is the issue. Cynically, I guess you could say it is a tort reform question (should the telecoms be sued for cooperating with our intelligence agencies), or protecting big business. I think what is really comes down to is that this Administration doesn't want their surveillance methods broadcast to our enemies and those opposing immunity are saying the secrets should be aired to see whether there was any unconstitutional surveillance of American citizens.
There is probably a compromise out there somewhere rather than forcing our intelligence agencies to stop monitoring of foreign targets and go before a secret FISA court. At this point, neither side is acting in the best interest of this nation, in my opinion.
The issue is a technology issue. Before "internets tubes" and fiber optics, our laws (and Constitution) clearly allowed our intelligence agencies to wiretap foreign targets over old telephone lines.
Now - thanks to modern technology - most of the world's communications pass through fiber optic and much of that fiber optic goes through the U.S.
Clearly, FISA (which was based on old technology) was not precise enough to handle the issue. At stake was whether interception of foreign communications which were the target of an investigation and which had been exempt from FISA when it was routed through old technology that didn't touch the U.S., now required FISA compliance because the fiber optic ran through the U.S.
The Bush Administration said it didn't require FISA court approval. After the Protect America law was passed (which exempted FISA court approval for these foreign communications), the Bush position had the weight of Congress behind it. The Protect America Law, however, sunset last week. A good argument could be made because Congress spoke on the issue and specifically put a provision in the law that sunset the legislation, all intercepts of foreign communication that run through fiber optic routed through the U.S. require FISA court approval.
If I haven't lost you yet, the issue is not whether that is wise. Congress believes those communications do not require FISA approval. They have legislation in the hopper that says that. They are disputing whether telecoms should be given immunity for cooperating with our intelligence agencies after 9/11 and before the Protect America Act (which codified no FISA court approval necessary for interception of foreign calls).
That is the issue. Cynically, I guess you could say it is a tort reform question (should the telecoms be sued for cooperating with our intelligence agencies), or protecting big business. I think what is really comes down to is that this Administration doesn't want their surveillance methods broadcast to our enemies and those opposing immunity are saying the secrets should be aired to see whether there was any unconstitutional surveillance of American citizens.
There is probably a compromise out there somewhere rather than forcing our intelligence agencies to stop monitoring of foreign targets and go before a secret FISA court. At this point, neither side is acting in the best interest of this nation, in my opinion.
bigNlongHorn
25+ Posts
The Supreme Court has essentially ratified the Bush Administration position that no one has standing to sue for having their electronic communications monitored illegally, i,e., without a warrant, unless they can show that their communications were in fact monitored -- which is classified information that the Bush Administration refuses to divulge.
You can't sue us unless we tell you that we were breaking the law, and we can't tell you that.
--David Kurtz
tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/supreme_court_refuses_to_hear.php
THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES
You can't sue us unless we tell you that we were breaking the law, and we can't tell you that.
--David Kurtz
tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/supreme_court_refuses_to_hear.php
THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES
triplehorn
2,500+ Posts
Wulaw Horn
1,000+ Posts
BC-
All I can say in my defense is the OP said that the "constitution" beat out big brother- not common sense, american values, decency, machismo or any one of a bunch of things that could have been said.
Triple- I've seen you make that point multiple times- and I'm asking you now for clarification- what do you mean by your statement that bush is trying to cover his *** retroactively.
Are you implying that you think he has some manner of finanical interest at stake (I.E that he's subject to a lawsuit)?
Are you implying that there is some manner of criminal proceeding that could be taken against him?
Or are you just arguing it is in some way an attempt to repair his image in the court of public opinion?
Or is it something else beyond that? Help me out here, I'm curious as to where you are coming from with your statements as to what I'm supposed to be watching.
All I can say in my defense is the OP said that the "constitution" beat out big brother- not common sense, american values, decency, machismo or any one of a bunch of things that could have been said.
Triple- I've seen you make that point multiple times- and I'm asking you now for clarification- what do you mean by your statement that bush is trying to cover his *** retroactively.
Are you implying that you think he has some manner of finanical interest at stake (I.E that he's subject to a lawsuit)?
Are you implying that there is some manner of criminal proceeding that could be taken against him?
Or are you just arguing it is in some way an attempt to repair his image in the court of public opinion?
Or is it something else beyond that? Help me out here, I'm curious as to where you are coming from with your statements as to what I'm supposed to be watching.
Wulaw Horn
1,000+ Posts
Ah- the old standing dodge- the court's favorite means of getting rid of a potentially sticky situation.
to my way of thinking it means that they didn't want to take the case/ didn't think it was necessary to strike down the law, so they dodged it in another way.
The decision makes sense, from a narrow legal perspective.
It does, indeed, also lead to a conundrum as decided. This is, I'm quite confident, a happening the court was aware of and thus at least tacitly endorsed.
Power to the congress, power to the executive. I'm ok with that, as these two branches are most repponsive to the body politic. Of course, I think Marbury was the worst decision the court ever made- so that's where my perspective is coming from.
to my way of thinking it means that they didn't want to take the case/ didn't think it was necessary to strike down the law, so they dodged it in another way.
The decision makes sense, from a narrow legal perspective.
It does, indeed, also lead to a conundrum as decided. This is, I'm quite confident, a happening the court was aware of and thus at least tacitly endorsed.
Power to the congress, power to the executive. I'm ok with that, as these two branches are most repponsive to the body politic. Of course, I think Marbury was the worst decision the court ever made- so that's where my perspective is coming from.
triplehorn
2,500+ Posts
Wulaw - as BigN pointed out just above, it may all be moot at this point:
Wulaw Horn
1,000+ Posts
Ok- but my question to you is the same- what does bush have that would concern him in order to prompt a cover up?
He ain't getting sued- he's got sovereign immunity for that.
He ain't getting prosecuted- no way no how.
He doesn't seem to care about his legacy, for good or ill.
So what is his apparent fear?
I think it's more likely he thinks this is sensible and necessary.
I tend to agree- I don't see why the Telecoms should get sued if they were acting in good faith on a government order. Seems like you won't ever get cooperation in the future- of course that could be the point but that's not what you or them are saying.
He ain't getting sued- he's got sovereign immunity for that.
He ain't getting prosecuted- no way no how.
He doesn't seem to care about his legacy, for good or ill.
So what is his apparent fear?
I think it's more likely he thinks this is sensible and necessary.
I tend to agree- I don't see why the Telecoms should get sued if they were acting in good faith on a government order. Seems like you won't ever get cooperation in the future- of course that could be the point but that's not what you or them are saying.
bozo_casanova
2,500+ Posts
It's an aside, but Wulaw and Washpark, I highly recommend The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History to you both.
It's written by UT Law's own Phillip Bobbitt, and while as the title indicates the sweep is immense, the main preoccupation (in my view) of the book is the transition from nation-state to market-state and the need for a legal/constitutional order to accommodate that reality.
I think you'd both find it fascinating.
It's written by UT Law's own Phillip Bobbitt, and while as the title indicates the sweep is immense, the main preoccupation (in my view) of the book is the transition from nation-state to market-state and the need for a legal/constitutional order to accommodate that reality.
I think you'd both find it fascinating.
Wulaw Horn
1,000+ Posts
I just hate the idea of judicial review for the supreme court, and the court creating it out of whole cloth in that scenario.
It seems entirely against the concept of America as set up, and has led the way, imo to an unelected oligarchy having way too much say over political questions at the expense of the people.
I think the court shares a ton of blame for the Civil War and all the polluted politics of race from thereafter through the depression. I think they share a ton of blame for Roe v Wade and what that's done to pollute our politics (I think the single most polarizing decision in the past 40 years- and completely intellectually dishonest).
It's not a matter of whether or not I agree or disagree with their decision- it's more a matter of everytime that particular camel sticks it's nose under that proverbial tent it takes the decision making power away from the people (and the people's representatives) and puts it in out of touch, unelected and unacountable oligarchy.
I realize mine is a minority (some might even say moon bat fringe) poisition, but that's the cliff notes on why I believe the way that I do on that particular question.
It seems entirely against the concept of America as set up, and has led the way, imo to an unelected oligarchy having way too much say over political questions at the expense of the people.
I think the court shares a ton of blame for the Civil War and all the polluted politics of race from thereafter through the depression. I think they share a ton of blame for Roe v Wade and what that's done to pollute our politics (I think the single most polarizing decision in the past 40 years- and completely intellectually dishonest).
It's not a matter of whether or not I agree or disagree with their decision- it's more a matter of everytime that particular camel sticks it's nose under that proverbial tent it takes the decision making power away from the people (and the people's representatives) and puts it in out of touch, unelected and unacountable oligarchy.
I realize mine is a minority (some might even say moon bat fringe) poisition, but that's the cliff notes on why I believe the way that I do on that particular question.
Wulaw Horn
1,000+ Posts
Thanks,
I'll check it out.
I'm backlogged on reading right now (I've got about 15 books from christmas I'm still making my way through), but it'll be the next book I buy.
I'll check it out.
I'm backlogged on reading right now (I've got about 15 books from christmas I'm still making my way through), but it'll be the next book I buy.
Kyrie Eleison
500+ Posts
Over the years I've come to conclude that the defining mark of a ***** is that they will always be and forever remain completely and irrationally scared of The Other...whatever that Other may be (be it a person, a different political group, a different religion, a different idea, a different culture, etc.). But oddly enough they will never be frightened of themselves or those who think like them, which is unfortunate given that the the very thing that they should fear the most is themselves and their fellow ******* who "think" (I use that term loosely) like them; for it is them and their fellow ******* who pose the greatest danger to our Republic and our way of life.
Congrats, TW, you're one of the finer examples of what it means to be a *****.
Congrats, TW, you're one of the finer examples of what it means to be a *****.
Wulaw Horn
1,000+ Posts
To say Marbury re-inforced what was already on the books (or common practice) is certainly not in line with how I was ever taught constitutional jurisprudence. Maybe I'm wrong, but from diffent institutions and different educators it's been presented more or less the way
LurkerintheDark
250+ Posts
Wulaw Horn
1,000+ Posts
Do you hate FDR? Or Lincoln?
Lincoln for sure but definatley FDR (even before WWII) started this practice.
To my way of thinking EVERY preseident since FDR has been about gradually expanding the power of the Executive. Bush is no different from any of his last 11 predecessors imo.
Lincoln for sure but definatley FDR (even before WWII) started this practice.
To my way of thinking EVERY preseident since FDR has been about gradually expanding the power of the Executive. Bush is no different from any of his last 11 predecessors imo.
bozo_casanova
2,500+ Posts
Well, there's a key difference, which is that while he continued the expansion of the executive, his administration was manifestly incapable of managing any of the new authority they demanded, and that's pretty unprecedented.
Wulaw Horn
1,000+ Posts
Carter was also totally and completely inept at what you are describing BC.
Besides I don't think Bush is going to go down as historically good or bad (but Iraq imo is the only thing that matters to that analysis). Neither is his daddy, or Clinton, or carter or Ford etc. I think we have a tendancy to overthink these things. Plenty of presidents have grasped for more power. Plenty have been incompetent. Sun still rises in the east and sets in the west.
Besides I don't think Bush is going to go down as historically good or bad (but Iraq imo is the only thing that matters to that analysis). Neither is his daddy, or Clinton, or carter or Ford etc. I think we have a tendancy to overthink these things. Plenty of presidents have grasped for more power. Plenty have been incompetent. Sun still rises in the east and sets in the west.
S197HQQKEM
500+ Posts
the hilarious thing about pelosi's utterly futile and stupid gesture is that it CHANGES NOTHING. NSA etal will keep on doing what it's doing just like it has since the time of OSS. The only thing that this might do is make the enemy drop his guard if he very foolishly thinks that pelosi has changed anything at all. Not having a law like this didn't stop the clinton big ear project.
Kyrie Eleison
500+ Posts
MaduroUTMB
2,500+ Posts
In reply to:
Weekly Prediction Contest
CFP Round 2 • Peach Bowl
Wed, Jan 1 • 12:00 PM on ESPN
AZ State game and preview thread
Recent Threads
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 51
- West Mall
-
Post Right Wing looniness here
- Started by Seattle Husker
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
