Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Yet another law that doesn't apply to King George [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What there is, Art, is a clear statute which forbids warrantless surveillance of American citizens.

It wouldn't be this one, I hope:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Yet another law that doesn't apply to King George [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I was talking about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: Yet another law that doesn't apply to King George [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That one is pretty good, too.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Yet another law that doesn't apply to King George [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Most of those lawyers, like AmyCo, have backed down once they understood the situation better.

I have read the cases and the legal reasoning of interest as reviewed in Re: Sealed Case sums it up very well. There is nothing in that reasoning restricting the logic to noncitizens. Just provide the quote to disprove me. Oh, once again, you can't.
Quote Reply
Re: Yet another law that doesn't apply to King George [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Amy didnt weigh in. No one else "backed down"

And seriously, you're babbling. "Restricting the logic"??? The clear language of Truong dealt with foreign nationals. In Re Sealed Case did not once address the issue of warrantless searches of citzens. It dealt with the burden on the government to get a FISC warrant, and the degree to which that warrant was based on foreign intelligence collection.

_______________________________________________
Last edited by: jhc: Jan 5, 06 12:00
Quote Reply
Re: Yet another law that doesn't apply to King George [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Amy certainly did weigh in, and backed down from her simplistic analysis when challenged. It is in the archives. Other attorneys (STP?) weighed in even more clearly that the issue was quite complex, your simplistic ranting not withstanding.

I think the only purported attorney who didn't back down was Johnny Quest, who also opinied that the Congress changes the Constitution by passing laws. Loved that one. I still don't believe he is an attorney by the way, but who knows.

I never said Re: Sealed Case addressed the differences between citizens and non citizens. In fact, I specifically said it drew no such distinction. The quotes in the various threads are not in the context of noncitizens, or even in the context of the particular case at hand, but a general overview of the law.

Edited to add this quote from Amy, just a couple posts below the post you reference: " There have been a lot of good arguments made since I last checked in. And I certainly don't need to add to the legal debate."
Last edited by: ajfranke: Jan 5, 06 12:19
Quote Reply
Re: Yet another law that doesn't apply to King George [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Most of those lawyers, like AmyCo, have backed down once they understood the situation better.

I think most of them just got a headache.

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008
Quote Reply
Re: Yet another law that doesn't apply to King George [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I never said Re: Sealed Case addressed the differences between citizens and non citizens. In fact, I specifically said it drew no such distinction. The quotes in the various threads are not in the context of noncitizens, or even in the context of the particular case at hand, but a general overview of the law.

Your quotes specifically refer to Truong and Sealed Case Art. Truong was a Vietnamese citizen, so his case and the reference to that case in the dicta of Sealed Case have no bearing on the issue of whether the President can authorize warrantless searches on US citizens. Sealed case only addressed the extent to which foreign surveillance vs. domestic law enforcement can be used to justify a FISC warrant.

I guarantee that of "a lot of good arguments" have not come from you. She doesnt need to add to the legal debate because everyone else knows your assertions of precedent are complete and utter crap.

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: Yet another law that doesn't apply to King George [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
OK, but the Justice Department doesn't seem to think so as evidenced by their five page letter to the Intelligence Committee Chairs that referenced the exact same cases.

But you know much better, which is good.

I guess you know better than liberal Constitutional Law Professor from the University of Chicago, Cass Sustein too:

http://radioblogger.com/archives/december05.html#001248
Quote Reply
Re: Yet another law that doesn't apply to King George [rundhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
. Bubba Bechtol, part time City Councilman from Midland, TX, was asked on
an am local live radio talk show the other day, just what he thought of the
allegations of torture of the Iraqi prisoners. His reply prompted his
ejection from the studio, but to thunderous applause from the audience.
"If hooking up an Iraqi prisoner's scrotum to a car's battery cables will save
one American GI's life, then I have just two things to say":



"Red is positive" "Black is negative"

Quote Reply
Re: Yet another law that doesn't apply to King George [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I said that amending the constitution was essentially legislative. Notice how no other lawyers felt the need to correct me. That is because I said essentially legislative. essentially.





I opted out because you appear to be a whack-job. Not one of those clever, intelligent whack-jobs. More of a slobbering, raising a ruckus at the neighborhood meeting type whack-job.



I initially took umbrage with you stating that this was a clear issue. Now you seem to comprehend that this isn't clear cut, which was my point in the first place.



go back and read. Read the cases you keep mis-citing as well.



then go take some xanax or librium or what ever your diagnosis requires.
Quote Reply
Re: Yet another law that doesn't apply to King George [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
OK, but the Justice Department doesn't seem to think so as evidenced by their five page letter to the Intelligence Committee Chairs that referenced the exact same cases.

But you know much better, which is good.

I guess you know better than liberal Constitutional Law Professor from the University of Chicago, Cass Sustein too:

http://radioblogger.com/...cember05.html#001248
So before we go on, does this mean you're dropping the claim that Sealed Case and/or Truong provide precedent for Bush's current warrantless surveillence of US citizens?

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: Yet another law that doesn't apply to King George [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Most of those lawyers, like AmyCo, have backed down once they understood the situation better.


Don't include me. I never backed down. I just stopped arguing with you.
Quote Reply
Re: Yet another law that doesn't apply to King George [jonnyquest] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
then go take some xanax or librium or what ever your diagnosis requires.
Art and I agreed he merely needs to get laid more frequently.

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: Yet another law that doesn't apply to King George [tootall] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Cholla never backed down either FWIW, and he was the first to say Sealed Case was irrelevent.

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: Yet another law that doesn't apply to King George [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I haven't been following Art lately, has he stopped using POTUS when referring to our beloved President?
Last edited by: tootall: Jan 5, 06 13:13
Quote Reply
Re: Yet another law that doesn't apply to King George [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
True. I'm still reading sometimes, but like most, I have given up on Art. If Ken is right, someone should contact Mrs. Franke.
Quote Reply
Re: Yet another law that doesn't apply to King George [Startmeup] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I know this is a joke but,

Bubba Bechtol, part time City Councilman from Midland, TX,

There's a shock, he's from Texas.

"If hooking up an Iraqi prisoner's scrotum to a car's battery cables will save
one American GI's life, then I have just two things to say":

It's funny how people can associate torturing someone in Iraq with keeping us safer. It seems to me that the President is continually justifying any and everything on the pretense of keeping us safer. It's to the same level of unbelief that so many still believe that Iraq has WMD.


It's becoming laughable. We have completely lost any common sense because of this "war on terror."

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008
Quote Reply
Re: Yet another law that doesn't apply to King George [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
They do provide precedent. Not perfect, dead on precedent, simply the best out there.

The Sustein presentation I quoted above is the absolute best and most even I have seen. His bottom line is bang on. Interesting case, with strong arguments to support Bush.
Quote Reply
Re: Yet another law that doesn't apply to King George [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
They do provide precedent. Not perfect, dead on precedent, simply the best out there.
God you're fucking obtuse.

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: Yet another law that doesn't apply to King George [jonnyquest] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Here is what you said, that I don't think you got from your Constitutional Law class:

"My point, which I guess was too subtle, is that the congress can, in fact, change the constitution."

I am breathless awaiting the reference from your class textbook.
Quote Reply
Re: Yet another law that doesn't apply to King George [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Fine, I am an idiot.

Just explain why Sustein is an idiot too.
Quote Reply
Re: Yet another law that doesn't apply to King George [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sustein is an idiot too

"So if FISA is ambiguous, or its applicability is in question, the prudent thing to do, as the first President Bush liked to say, is to interpret it so that FISA doesn't compromise the president's Constitutional power"

FISA is not ambiguous, and the president does not have any Constitutional power (either actually in the Consitution nor via Supreme Court rulings) to spy on US citizens without a warrant.

He also believes that the president can break the law because he's not too excited about going through the required legal steps to get a warrant.

"It's not the most cumbersome thing in the world, but it is something that the president, when national security is on the line, isn't excited about having to go through a procedure where it's conceivable he's going to lose...unlikely, but conceivable."

_______________________________________________
Quote Reply
Re: Yet another law that doesn't apply to King George [jhc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Sustein is an idiot too."

OK, got it now. Here is the "idiot" of which you speak:

Professor Cass Sunstein:

Cass R. Sunstein graduated in 1975 from Harvard College and in 1978 from Harvard Law School magna cum laude. After graduation, he clerked for Justice Benjamin Kaplan of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and Justice Thurgood Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court. Before joining the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School, he worked as an attorney-advisor in the Office of the Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice. Mr. Sunstein has testified before congressional committees on many subjects, and he has been involved in constitution-making and law reform activities in a number of nations, including Ukraine, Poland, China, South Africa, and Russia. A member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Mr. Sunstein has been Samuel Rubin Visiting Professor of Law at Columbia, visiting professor of law at Harvard, vice-chair of the ABA Committee on Separation of Powers and Governmental Organizations, chair of the Administrative Law Section of the Association of American Law Schools, a member of the ABA Committee on the future of the FTC, and a member of the President's Advisory Committee on the Public Service Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters.

Mr. Sunstein is a member of the Department of Political Science as well as the Law School. He is author of many articles and a number of books, including After the Rights Revolution: Reconceiving the Regulatory State (1990), Constitutional Law (co-authored with Geoffrey Stone, Louis M. Seidman, and Mark Tushnet) (1995), The Partial Constitution (1993), Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech (1993), Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict (1996), Free Markets and Social Justice (1997), Administrative Law and Regulatory Policy (1998) (with Justice Stephen Breyer and Professor Richard Stewart and Matthew Spitzer), One Case At A Time (1999), Behavioral Law and Economics (editor, 2000), Designing Democracy: What Constitutions Do (2001), Republic.com (2001), Risk and Reason (2002), The Cost-Benefit State (2002), Punitive Damages: How Juries Decide (2002), Why Societies Need Dissent (2003), The Second Bill of Rights (2004), and Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle (2005). He is now working on various projects involving the relationship between law and human behavior.

Born: 1954.
Education: A.B., 1975, J.D., 1978, Harvard University
Quote Reply

Prev Next