|
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
You just gave me the supplemental brief by Ashcroft to the FISA courts in order to say what they are doing is legal back in 2002. How the hell does that validate your point or undermine mine? It wasn't until DECEMBER of 2003 that Goldsmith came in to the OLC and said Article II wasn't a reasonable rationale for supporting their actions (which subsequently was soon followed by the AUMF rationale immediately thereafter). And it does nothing to disprove what SCOTUS had ruled in Hamdan in regards to Article II and the powers that POTUS supposedly has. Have you got a case which disproves this? Again let me quote the Hamdan ruling:
This speaks directly to the powers that POTUS supposedly has. Try again, and it seems like it's you who owes the apology right now. |
you're right. i'm sorry. i gave you the wrong link. i'm not on my computer i'm at work.
down a little more than halfway on page 48 it unequivocally states the FISC's opinion on where and how the Exective draws his power and how no court can usurp it from him.
"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.26 It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power. The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a
26 Although the plurality opinion in Zweibon v. Mitchell, 516 F.2d 594, 633-51 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944 (1976), suggested the contrary in dicta, it did not decide the issue.
mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the
government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable."
>LINK<
this is what is called a sound legal foundation. so sound when the ACLU appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, the SCOTUS chose not to intervene. this is exactly why the Dems caved last week. this is exactly what shut Fiengold up. this is why the "worst President in history" continues to get the things he wants in order to achieve his primary objective. protecting the American people.
right now i'm going to say Hamdan had different legal ramifications as to the extent and detail of Executive power.
i'm looking into it.
Last edited by Q5echo on Jun-23-2008 at 02:36
|
