For anyone interested, here is a good article, and here is another.
While poking around, I also found this quote about FISA and Youngstown Steel:
"The Conference report – the final and most definitive explanation of Congress’ legislative intent – firmly reiterates that Congress intended to occupy the field regarding domestic warrantless surveillance: “The intent of the conferees is to apply the standard set forth in Justice Jackson’s concurring opinion in the Steel Seizure case: ‘When a President takes measures incompatible with the express or implied will of Congress, his power is at the lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional power minus any constitutional power of Congress over the matter.’” From here
Congress clearly intended when they enacted FISA to place domestic wiretapping into the third category, despite Gonzalez’s claims.
Well Hamlet I find myself in a unique position just now. I’m going to have to concede that I’ve lost this debate (losing isn’t the unique part, nor is realizing it.) The unique part is that having lost, and realizing it, I’m still not sure I’m wrong.
This is through no fault or inadequacy on your part, but rather my ineptitude. I feel that somebody who understands these legal issues better than me might make a much stronger argument, or arguments.
In other words, it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that I am not competant enough on these issues to give my point of view a fair shake.
You know what you are talking about, and I appreciate (truly and sincerely) the discussion you’ve given me.
This doesn’t mean we have to stop, but in case we do, I wanted to let you know where I stand. I have sometimes been frustrated when I’ve argued well from a postion of knowledge and received no concession or appreciation for my efforts, and I didn’t want you to leave without it, because your efforts really do deserve high praise…
…and I am beaten.
If you like, I can try to regroup and take another stab at gaining some more knowledge so that I can defend my arguments better (and likely get beaten up again,) but you’ve certainly done your do and deserve a victory lap.
While I appreciate the kudos, I’m not here to try and “win” a debate. I want as many people as possible to understand what this administration is doing is illegal and unconstitutional. The more people who are willing to look beyond the facade this administration tries to put up, the better. I just want people to realize what is really at stake in supporting this administrations actions. If, after realizing what is really going on, they are willing to still support a President who breaks the law with impunity to “keep the country safe” (and to find unauthorized leaks to silence the media, but that’s another thread) that’s their call. As much as I find this administration’s actions reprehensible, I can kinda understand how someone is willing to sacrifice the Constitution for safety. Personally, I think they’re cowards and idiots, but at least they’re cowards and idiots with full possession of the facts.
Don’t sell yourself so short. Here is the DOJ’s position paper on the issue, and, with a few exceptions, you hit every one of their arguments. The only things you might have missed was arguing that Hamdi, which found the AUMF gave the President the power to detain enemy combatants indefintely, also allows his to conduct warrantless surveillance on Americans. (Of course, that is another argument doomed to fail because domestic surveillance is not a “fundamental incident of war.”) They also go into much more detail about the alleged legal basis for the inherent power to wiretap. (although still ignoring the gaping problem with the fact that Congress has enacted FISA).
I’ve reupped for the year, so I’ll be here if you ever want to get into the issues again. But I’ll tell you I don’t think it’s a matter of you misunderstanding the issues or being unable to raise the points, you can and did. Even Bricker conceded the President’s actions violated FISA. It’s not you, it’s just that you’re backing the wrong horse on this one. Or, more correctly, you’re backing the wrong horse’s ass on this one.
I apologize for bumping this ancient mummy of a thread, but I wanted to save it permanently to my SD account. The discussion here was really informative.
Is there a way to subscribe without posting in the thread?