Court Allows NSA Wiretapping Program to Continue During Appeal (1 Viewer)

[ProudAmerican]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217847,00.html

now if we can just get the ridiculous decision overturned, maybe we can continue to fight terrorists.

 

[Deegan]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217847,00.html

now if we can just get the ridiculous decision overturned, maybe we can continue to fight terrorists.

Hmmmmm, but some have said how unconstitutional it is, and how the country is going to hell.......but what do those judges know anyway.:roll:

 

[Stinger]

Hmmmmm, but some have said how unconstitutional it is, and how the country is going to hell.......but what do those judges know anyway.:roll:

ONE judge has said so. All other courts to rule on the matter have ruled it is the within the constitutional authority of the President and that cannot be legislated away.

 

[jfuh]

ONE judge has said so. All other courts to rule on the matter have ruled it is the within the constitutional authority of the President and that cannot be legislated away.

what other courts?

 

[Stinger]

what other courts?

Sigh.....how many times does it have to be cited?

The FISA court of review for one.

 

[jfuh]

Sigh.....how many times does it have to be cited?

The FISA court of review for one.

Then it should be easy to link to the source.

 

[Stinger]

Then it should be easy to link to the source.

Why? It's been linked too over and over and over in threads you have participated in.

 

[Navy Pride]

I am just glad that sensible people have prevailed to this point........I am confident the SCOTUS will do the same.........

 

[Goobieman]

what other courts?

Interesting you how lay demands that you yourself will not meet.

C6, for one.
They stayed the ruling based on their own precedent.

Here's the stay itself:
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet...062095_000.pdf

It references the information you;re looking for.

 

[Navy Pride]

I started a thread on this already...Hopefully a moderator will combine the two........

 

[jfuh]

Interesting you how lay demands that you yourself will not meet.

C6, for one.
They stayed the ruling based on their own precedent.

Here's the stay itself:
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet...062095_000.pdf

It references the information you;re looking for.

An invalid link with a corrupt file?

 

[jfuh]

Why? It's been linked too over and over and over in threads you have participated in.

So humor me and link here.

 

[Stinger]

So humor me and link here.

I'm not here to humor, try to keep up on your own.

 

[Hobbes]

ONE judge has said so. All other courts to rule on the matter have ruled it is the within the constitutional authority of the President and that cannot be legislated away.

Ah, nothing like only providing information for one half of the issue. Heres that other bit you like to leave out.

No court decision has said Congress does not have the authority to make rules on surveillance, particularly domestic.

 

[Stinger]

Ah, nothing like only providing information for one half of the issue. Heres that other bit you like to leave out.

No court decision has said Congress does not have the authority to make rules on surveillance, particularly domestic.

Since this isn't about domestic surveillance that is a straw dog arguement, that being said the courst in fact did rule that such legislation could not infringe on the Presidents inheirent authority to conduct such FOREIGN intelliegence as is the issue here. The congress cannot legislate away the Constitution, Government 101.

 

[Hobbes]

Since this isn't about domestic surveillance that is a straw dog arguement, that being said the courst in fact did rule that such legislation could not infringe on the Presidents inheirent authority to conduct such FOREIGN intelliegence as is the issue here. The congress cannot legislate away the Constitution, Government 101.

If one side in a two person phone call can be an American citizen in the US, it is most certainly domestic.

And please provide a source for this decision, don't just say , 'oh we've been other this', because you're not being specific enough about the cases.

 

[Stinger]

If one side in a two person phone call can be an American citizen in the US, it is most certainly domestic.

No it is not and I challenge you to convince Ma Bell it is.

And please provide a source for this decision, don't just say , 'oh we've been other this', because you're not being specific enough about the cases.

They have been posted for months and months and months and remain unrefutted. Do you own search and your own education into United States Government and the constitution.

 

[ProudAmerican]

If one side in a two person phone call can be an American citizen in the US, it is most certainly domestic.

nope. if the call was outgoing, you might have an argument. if the call is incomming, its definately a foreign call and the person on the receiving end has some splaining to do.

 

[Hobbes]

No it is not and I challenge you to convince Ma Bell it is.



They have been posted for months and months and months and remain unrefutted. Do you own search and your own education into United States Government and the constitution.

You saying its not domestic does not make it so. Having oversight on calls involving Americans on American soil (whatever you want to call it, domestic or international) makes sense. And on top of that you have actually have to establish that Congress CANT make laws involving surveillance, which you haven't.

And if you won;'t actually name a single court case, then you have no basis for claiming anything about the courts. This has nothing to do with "searches" ; back up your claim or don't make it.

 

[Stinger]

You saying its not domestic does not make it so. Having oversight on calls involving Americans on American soil (whatever you want to call it, domestic or international) makes sense.

If it crosses our border it is international, that is the meaning of international, it is foriegn not domestice. Your inability to grasp that simple concept does not not make it so. That is the defintion of international and foriegn. Domestic is totally within our borders.

And on top of that you have actually have to establish that Congress CANT make laws involving surveillance, which you haven't.

Involving foriegn surveilence as already noted in this thread and others and others and others it has all been clearly cited. The courts have clearly ruled that the congress cannot legislate away the Presidents inheirent constitutional authority to conduct foriegn survielence against our enemies.

And if you won;'t actually name a single court case, then you have no basis for claiming anything about the courts. This has nothing to do with "searches" ; back up your claim or don't make it.

It's all been done before, discussed endless on all the news networks. Do your own homework.

 

[Stinger]

Since I know you will only come back saying something like "well if you won't post then you are wrong" and seem to want to remain ignorant about it here is a link to start with, it took me 2 seconds to find it.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012623.php

 

[Hobbes]

If it crosses our border it is international, that is the meaning of international, it is foriegn not domestice. Your inability to grasp that simple concept does not not make it so. That is the defintion of international and foriegn. Domestic is totally within our borders.



Involving foriegn surveilence as already noted in this thread and others and others and others it has all been clearly cited. The courts have clearly ruled that the congress cannot legislate away the Presidents inheirent constitutional authority to conduct foriegn survielence against our enemies.



It's all been done before, discussed endless on all the news networks. Do your own homework.

I have done my homework, so please try me, the court cases that support what your saying.

And it is domestic surveillance if its on US soil. It sounds simpler to call it foreign or international, but we're discussing a very specific aspect of this issue. The only part in question is the American citizen being tapped without a warrant. So while it might be an international call, the area of contention is the warrantless wiretapping of an American on American soil (that parts domestic) . This is a specific issue, trying to generalize and talk about it vaguely doesnt help.

Again name your court cases. You claimed Congress cannot infringe on the President's inherent authority. What case are you citing for this?

Maybe you mean the FISA Court of Review 2002 case? If so, then be more specific.

I'm challeging you to find one case where a court said Congress could not make rules in regards to surveillance. (because they did , FISA!)

 

[Stinger]

I'm challeging you to find one case where a court said Congress could not make rules in regards to surveillance. (because they did , FISA!)

Sigh...........and the courts have all stated that congress could not encroach, through the FISA Act, on the presidents inheirent authority to conduct just such survielence, which is why every President has ignored the provisions which may have.

It they want to amend the constitution in order to do so they can try.

I gave you a site to start with.

 

[Hobbes]

I'll save you the time and quote exactly what you are trying to take out of context. Perhaps you havent read the FISA Court of Review Case 2002?

'President does have that authority and asuuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power'

Now, if one simply look at this statement alone, misguide conclusions could be drawn.

The bolded part would seem to support your theory. However it would have to have general application and it doesnt. It is a very specific reference to the beginning of the paragraph and to the section it is involved in. When it says FISA could not encroach on the Presidents...' it is refering to an attempt during the TRUONG CASE by the court to set the primary purpose test as constitutionally required.

This quote sets no precedent and does not even attempt to try and deal with Congresses authority in survelliance. Next?

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/FISCR/20030129-02-001.pdf

 

[Stinger]

It was the particular legislation involved at the time and the constitutional prinicple was upheld. Congress cannot legislate away the Presidents constitutionaly authority. Just as it cannot legislate away his veto powers. So if you have a case that says otherwise or can cite in the constitution where the congress has the authority to dictate to the president how he will conduct foreign survielence the previous cites still stand.

And as Rich Lowery reported to expand on what you were posting

"Every administration, liberal or conservative, has claimed this warrantless surveillance power, and no court has ever denied it. The FISA court of review explained, citing the 14th Circuit's 1980 decision in a case involving the surveillance of a Vietnamese spy named David Truong, "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." The court added, "We take it for granted that the President does have that authority.""

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1551281/posts