I am not arguing for the unchecked autonomy of an individual. Partly this is why I feel that such decisions belong in the hands of an elected official rather than an appointed judge.
It sounds to me like you’re suggesting that the legal branch supersedes the executive branch. I don’t think that was the founders’ intent. They are supposed to be equal. In cases of National Security it appears to me that the executive branch prevails as this is its specific charge.
9/11 is a memory. There is no similar threat on the horizon. If the monkey wants to claim that there is, let him prove it.
The Constitution feels differently.
How so? I’m not asking for any Executive powers to be handed to the Judicial Branch.
Well that’s how they wrote it down. Should we adopt a new legal standard according to “what Scylla thinks was the founders’ intent?”
Exactly.
I’m suggesting that each branch of government respect the powers and checks assigned to them by the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that says those delineations go away “in cases of National Security.” You are citing an imaginary loophole.
Practically true, but not legally so unless Congress so declares. Or you get to the point where Nixon was, where the Democratic Party becomes “the enemy.”
That’s the beast. Note that Truman’s justification was an almost exact duplicate of what Bush’s supporters say is his: that we were in a state of undeclared war (Korea) and his actions were necessary for the national security.
The courts cannot “pass a law” under any circumstances. They interpret the law, including the Constitution.
And the President does not have the “inherent power” to order searches. Review the Fourth Amendment.
There’s also justification for unwarrantless searches under certain circumstances, and the one you’ve outlined (assuming that Bush’s staff haven’t been passing him what they want him to hear again, and the evidence is sufficiently overwhelming as to justify “probable cause”) would fall into that category. Legal eagles, tell me if I’m wrong on this.
No, I am not kidding. The situation with France, i.e. open undeclared warfare, is no different from what just happened in Iraq. Unless you have a more recent cite that overrules Bas then I see no reason why, besides of course that it proves you wrong, you should not accept it.
Your 205 year old case was a narrow decision which applied only to a specific situation between the US and France in 1800. In what way do you believe this case is applicable to al Qaeda? In what way does it justify the president spying on Americans?
Becuase its nearly an identical situation. If you would just read the case you would see that paragraphs like:
If you changed the date to the date of the AUMF, replaced France and French with Al Qaeda and Terrorists does the truth in this paragraph change?
I haven’t even made that argument yet. Lets first establish whether or no Al Qaeda and more broadly “The terrorists” can be considered enemies and whether the USA is at war with them.
