Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Federalist Society weighs in...On Spygate

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 03:04 PM
Original message
The Federalist Society weighs in...On Spygate
(Kpete: I don't know if this has been posted yet, VERY interesting albeit wordy...find at Firedoglake)

The Federalist Society weighs in...

http://www.fed-soc.org/

http://www.fed-soc.org/pdf/ domes...urveillance.pdf


Thanks to Cozumel for the Federalist Society Link above. Really good reading on the underlying legal issues.

There is a good "Pro-Con" discussion format. Interesting argument that FISA, more than the 4th Ammendment, provides a solid legal framework against the kind of warrantless spying Bush authorized. Also, the Youngstown vs. Ohio case, decided by the Supremes against Truman in 1952 is a key precedent against the plenary powers of the President invoked on National Security grounds. Also, the provision in Article II of the Constitution that the President shall ensure that the laws are faithfully carried out.

Most of the Republican talking points, which are political rather than legal in nature, are pretty well trashed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kaygore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. These are oil men (black and dirty), not lawyers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
2. the federalists are still pissed off
that jefferson got the bill of rights into our constitution and the sedition and alien act was thrown out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogfacedboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. Interesting read.
Edited on Tue Dec-27-05 03:26 PM by dogfacedboy
Looks like the Cockroach-In-Chief has committed crimes here.

Regarding the Federalist Society, the nerdly geekiness of these dorks never fails to amaze me.

Is the individual named Rivkin that dork I see on the propaganda shows from time to time? Glasses, thick neck, Bush whore?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissMarple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
4. Whoa, the President has "overreached".
And this is from the Federalist Society's Bob Levy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maestro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-27-05 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
5. Here are some choice quotes.
All from Levy.



“To conduct a wiretap without statutory authorization, either in wartime or peacetime, is a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison.”

The statute reads: “Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this title to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.”

Yes, I believe that the president has constitutional powers to order warrantless wartime surveillance. For example, intercepting enemy communications on the battlefield is clearly an incident of the president’s war power. But warrantless wiretapping of Americans inside the United States who may have nothing to do with Al Qaeda does not qualify as an incidental wartime authority. The president’s war powers are broad, but not “plenary” as your question implies. Indeed, Congress, not the president, is constitutionally authorized to suspend habeas corpus, “define and punish … Offenses against the Law of Nations,” “declare War,” “raise and support
Armies,” “provide and maintain a Navy,” and “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces.”



But, freepers will bring in the Fourth Amendment. Levy counters,
"…Even under Youngstown’s second category (congressional silence), the president might have inherent authority pursuant to the Commander-in-Chief Clause to interpret the “reasonableness” standard of the Fourth Amendment in a manner that would sanction certain warrantless searches. But the NSA program does not fit in Youngstown’s second category. It belongs in the third category, in which the president has acted in the face of an express statutory prohibition. In my view, he has overreached."


Ouch!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 10th 2024, 05:15 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC