Jythier Jythier

The Constitution Is Interpretted by Judges

▼

The Constitution Is Interpretted by Judges

Congressional Approval Doesn't Matter

from JoeUser Forums
So, I read this morning on AOL news that a judge has finally decided that the spying on people without warrants by the president and his men is unconstitutional.

Finally.

The article went on to mention that due to this ruling, the President might have to seek congressional approval. ... I don't really get it. Did anyone bother to read the constitution? What can Congress do? Anything they do to approve it will just be unconstitutional in itself!

Anyway, as soon as the USA PATRIOT Act was passed, and I knew about it, I feared this result. It's not that I want my rights trampled on - far from it. But, terrorists that have been caught by unconstitutional means get a pass. They go free. Not yet, but when it's all said and done, that's what's going to happen. You can't pass an unconstitutional law and prosecute people with it. They will get away in the end, not be caught. There are only a couple explanations to this. One is that GWB was just hoping that nobody would notice. It got through Congress because of that, I think. The second is that GWB wants terrorists to go free. I don't know why he would want that, but if you look into his history, it could be possible. The Bin Laden family got out without being questioned.

Honestly, I'm not sure. Maybe he just didn't bother to pay attention in government class. But... some of those terrorists could've been caught without the unconstitutional help. And they would've stayed locked away. Now, who knows?
politics
16,286 views 36 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

Balancing Persistent Worlds (I can advertise my own blog on my own articles, right?)

yes you can!  I did not see that one, but some of mine that I thought were good never got there.  Hey!  Brad is human.  He likes what he likes and such.  And we play on his dime, so I do not fault him.

Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Me either, but I had written that one to appeal to his techno-sensors.
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
The domestic phone tapping issue comes back to the fourth amendment, the whole prohibition of warrantless searches. This is pretty much the whole foundation to the right to privacy argument, which all comes down to how you read the Constitution, as a literal document or one of spirit and intent. If we go by literal, the only thing that is protected by the constitution are your physical belongings residing within your property or person. Of course if we go with the literal-only reading, we can make a person a slave to the state if they're convicted of a crime (ANY crime too... stole a candybar? Slave!). And militias are to be regulated by congress and be at their call for deployment (oooh... states rights!). It seems to work out the best for the most people though when it's taken as a document of intent since the framers couldn't even speculate as to what life would be like in 200+ years.

But keep in mind that all it takes to repeal any amendment (or adding a new one) is 2/3 of each house of Congress, and then 2/3 of all the state legislatures. This is a very difficult barrier to breach, and would require some sort of divine intervention to pass anything against the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments). So Congress, with the help of the states themselves, can go in and make changes if they all agree.

The problem with the Patriot Act, or the wiretapping program is that it is all allowed under the War Powers Act (1973) which gives the President of the United States. In order to get at these more recent problems, you'd need to address that older law. Until it is ruled unconstitutional, acts carried out under it are perfectly legal.

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

2/3 of each house of Congress, and then 2/3 of all the state legislatures.

3/4 of the states actually.

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's what I thought, 3/4, but I didn't want to say anything because I thought 3/4 might just be to ratify it.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
All the speculation by the armchair justices on Joe User does not mean a thing. As I have said from day one of this issue, it NEEDS to go to the Supreme Court and be settled PER OUR SYSTEM. Yes, Congress and the laws they pass are subject to review by the Federal courts just like the actions of Bush!
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
The supreme court will overrule this decision. Wiretaps for the use of gaining intelligence are not unconstitutional.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
The supreme court will overrule this decision. Wiretaps for the use of gaining intelligence are not unconstitutional.


I tend to agree, but then they did not strike down the Money part of McCain fiengold, so I will not say it will happen.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
yes you can! I did not see that one, but some of mine that I thought were good never got there. Hey! Brad is human. He likes what he likes and such. And we play on his dime, so I do not fault him.


Sometimes, I think Brad simply doesn't SEE some of the feature worthy articles. He can't be in all places at once, after all.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sometimes, I think Brad simply doesn't SEE some of the feature worthy articles. He can't be in all places at once, after all.


Best not let Capt'n Starkers here you say that.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
I was under the impression that the president could do most anything he needs/wants to when a circumstance may affect national security?