Justifying Spying

"Where the President believes that an enactment [by Congress] unconstitutionally limits his powers, he has the authority to defend his office and decline to abide by it,"

More from the same legal opinion.

If he said it, it must be true. It's not as if he'd be biased or anything.

But wouldn't his action to defend his office be to veto whatever Act that Congress had put before him? It seems as though this doesn't so much justify anything, but make an excuse for it. The Govt got caught "spying"
The congress said "You can't because of this law"
The Pres said "Oh, that law.. well that's unconstitutional so I'm going to ignore it."

If it was unconstitutional, why did it get passed in the first place?

If he said it, it must be true. It's not as if he'd be biased or anything.

Glad you agree. 

If it was unconstitutional, why did it get passed in the first place?

Why do you think the Supreme court exists?  Aren't they ruling on the constitutionality of laws all the time?  These are laws that were passed, either by congress or the states.

Mr. President seems to think that the Bill of Rights didn't actually change the rest of the constitution. Do our rights outweigh his powers? Yeah, they do.

If it was unconstitutional, why did it get passed in the first place?

And they even amended it with the Patriot Act, but apparently they didn't have constitutional issues with it then, because their hands weren't caught in the cookie jar at that point.

If they really though it was unconstitutional, and protecting us from terrorism is as important to them as they claim, then they had an obligation to get congress to change the law.

If he said it, it must be true. It's not as if he'd be biased or anything. Glad you agree.

It's about as true as this statement that Gonzales made yesterday;

President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale.

Washington authorized electronic surveillance? Priceless!

Mr. President seems to think that the Bill of Rights didn't actually change the rest of the constitution. Do our rights outweigh his powers? Yeah, they do.

Who has said that his powers outweigh our rights?  Whose rights have been violated?  Name them.

And they even amended it with the Patriot Act, but apparently they didn't have constitutional issues with it then, because their hands weren't caught in the cookie jar at that point.

I have said it before and will say it again.  Congress does not have the power to usurp the constitution.  The patriotic act does not apply.  The Patriot act applies to US citizens, not spies.

Washington authorized electronic surveillance? Priceless!

Hey!  He has Ben Franklin to thank for that one!

Was it me or did Speedy Gonzalez sound like a cat on a hot tin roof?
Well, I ummm umm, I well umm, cough, well the terrorists attcked us on 9/11... ummm...

one more thing i never imagined seeing in my lifetime: american conservatives endorsing the expansion of the executive branch to the detriment of the other two.

maybe yall really are monarchists after all?

Was it me or did Speedy Gonzalez sound like a cat on a hot tin roof? Well, I ummm umm, I well umm, cough, well the terrorists attcked us on 9/11... ummm...

Dont know what speedy has to do with this, since it is not his quote.

one more thing i never imagined seeing in my lifetime: american conservatives endorsing the expansion of the executive branch to the detriment of the other two. maybe yall really are monarchists after all?

1. Who is endorsing it?  I see no one here talking about expansion.  We are talking the constitution after all, and that is not an expansion, just a definition of.

2. HOw is following the constitution expanding the Executive? 

3. Why are we monarchist for wanting to follow the constitution?

4. Are you going non-sequitar on us again?

Aren't they ruling on the constitutionality of laws all the time? - Dr. Guy

Yes, unfortunately they haven't weighed in on this yet.

Now, with Roberts and Alito on the bench (both I respect and are qualified) I believe we'll see their continued lean toward Federalism.

american conservatives endorsing the expansion of the executive branch to the detriment of the other two. - Kingbee

Conservatives? At JU?

Where?

Oh, I see, you accidentally dropped the 'neo' in front of 'conservatives'.

NEO-CONSERVATIVE; Neo-Con :

Kinda' like Nazi's but aren't quite as facist. Kinda' like conservatives, but, umm....for more spending, big government, nation-building, anti-states rights...

f he said it, it must be true. It's not as if he'd be biased or anything.

It doesn't matter if he is biased. He's the "head" lawman in the US.

If he said it, it must be true. It's not as if he'd be biased or anything.

It's really sad that you didn't even comprehend what DrGuy posted;

The head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Council Stated the following to justifying gathering intelligence:

"The President has enhanced responsibility to resist unconstitutional provisions that encroach upon the constitutional powers of the Presidency"

I though Gonzales was the head lawman in the US, not his lawyer.

Laziness, Short-sightedness, Complacency and Incompetence all but gutted our systems of human intel, now we are seeing the same things happening to signal intel.

Do people who are calling for impeachment of Prs. Bush over this realize that they are saying that all the enemy has to do is route their phone calls (and other communication) through the U.S. and our own Constitution will protect them?

Do people who are calling for impeachment of Prs. Bush over this realize that they are saying that all the enemy has to do is route their phone calls (and other communication) through the U.S. and our own Constitution will protect them?

That's not true. It isn't simply a case if THIS VS. THAT. There are legal ways to do the same thing. If there are not, then congress is willing to help them do it legally by changing FISA. They already did what Bush wanted them to in changing FISA when they passed the Patriot Act. If Bush wants more latitude there are ways to get it. But for an administration that has tirelessly beat the "Nation of Laws" and "Rule of Law" drums, it's disingenuous to go about this the way they have.

Do people who are calling for impeachment of Prs. Bush over this realize that they are saying that all the enemy has to do is route their phone calls (and other communication) through the U.S. and our own Constitution will protect them?

i'm not calling for impeachment since as far as i know nobody even wants to blow him in the whitehouse (with the possible exception of karl rove's buddy, the whitehouse correspondent/gay escort net entrepreneur).

with that outta the way, do those people who defend the president realize they're telling bush and gonzales they can pretty much do anything they want as long as they can somehow cloak it in the memory of 911? on it's own that would be bad enough. unfortunately, all this drama diverts our attention from--and depletes energies which could be much better spent preparing for--the next attack.

with that outta the way, do those people who defend the president realize they're telling bush and gonzales they can pretty much do anything they want as long as they can somehow cloak it in the memory of 911? on it's own that would be bad enough. unfortunately, all this drama diverts our attention from--and depletes energies which could be much better spent preparing for--the next attack.

They do not have to "cloak it" in 9/11. Please refer to the constituion and the war powers given to the president by it. Article 2, I believe.

Do people who are calling for impeachment of Prs. Bush over this realize that they are saying that all the enemy has to do is route their phone calls (and other communication) through the U.S. and our own Constitution will protect them? That's not true. It isn't simply a case if THIS VS. THAT. There are legal ways to do the same thing. If there are not, then congress is willing to help them do it legally by changing FISA. They already did what Bush wanted them to in changing FISA when they passed the Patriot Act. If Bush wants more latitude there are ways to get it. But for an administration that has tirelessly beat the "Nation of Laws" and "Rule of Law" drums, it's disingenuous to go about this the way they have.

Realistically, FISA should be struck down as unconstitutional. Any time a "law" tries to limit a constitutional granted power, it's bad law.

Kinda' like Nazi's but aren't quite as facist. Kinda' like conservatives, but, umm....for more spending, big government, nation-building, anti-states rights...

You love being a shit stirrer!

It doesn't matter if he is biased. He's the "head" lawman in the US.

Uh, no.  Just a high mucky muck in the OLC.