Perhaps you can provide a citation to a court case that has found this program to be unconstitutional.
huh? Do you need a civics refresher course also? The burden is not on me, the burden would be on Bush to prove that the FISA is unconstitutional. And since there are no court cases proving that the law is unconstitutional, Bush is acting unlawful
Now that is a good comment. You are correct that the 4th Ammendment does state a protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and that unreasonable is a relative term. I would counter though that the 4th Ammendment doesn't ignore warrants otherwise then any law enforcement could engage in any sort of search and argue that it was reasonable. For instance if the person wasn't home and the door was unlocked they could argue that it was reasonable to walk in and take a look as long as they didn't disturb anything. Courts have established that any search of that nature requires a warrant so whether a police officer believes something is reasonable or not isn't left up to their judgement to a court. This is perfectly in line with why a secret FISA court that can issue secret warrants was enacted in the first place to take the question of reasonableness out of the hand's of the executive branch which would be tempted to apply self-justifying standards of reasonableness. You raise a good point regarding reasonable or unreasonable but the problem with this situation isn't a question of what is reasonable but who decides that.
Not exactly. I believe what GW Bush is doing is unconstitutional and a clear violation of law but the absense of a court case doesn't prove that case because since there isn't a court case yet it hasn't been established officially whether it is constitutional or not. Further the burden of proof isn't necessarily on the President since we have an adversarial system addressing such issues the burden of proof actually is on the accuser. That's why I would hope that there is an investigation and eventually a USSC case on this issue and then we will have an official ruling.
no, it's a snap shot of a moment, and an issue, in time. what i particularly love is all those times a poll has shown results less favorable to bush, such as during the election or even a few weeks ago until murtha worked his reverse magic, and the liberal board members trumpeted the numbers as proof bush was doomed. all that's happened is that liberals have once again demonstrated they have zero connection to the vast majority of the country on national security issues. somewhere, rove is smiling.
I wonder. . . if polled. . . how many germans/Nazis support the Concentration Camps? Majority doesn't make something right Rocket River
irrelevent question at this point considering we're just finding out about this in the last two weeks
You're actually going to play a semantics game about this? I can't believe we actually have people here defending breaking the law and spying on American citizens! Amazing...
So that's what it's come to? Liberals can't site a precedent so it must be okay to **** on the constitution? thas beautiful.
thats the point.. its so bad its the first time something exactly like this happened.. but congress is set to investigate.. howabout nixon's impeachment?
U.S. REPORT UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS JULY 1994 Article 17 - Freedom from Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home Right to Privacy. The freedom from arbitrary and unlawful interference with privacy is protected under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. As explained previously, the Fourth Amendment protects persons from unlawful searches and seizures by the government at both state and federal levels. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined search under the Fourth Amendment to be a government infringement of a person's privacy. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 140-49 (1978). An infringement of that privacy occurs when the individual exhibits an actual subjective expectation of privacy and when that expectation is one that society is prepared to deem reasonable. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). Put another way, the reasonable expectation of privacy is the linchpin of the Fourth Amendment. Under that analysis, persons have no subjective or reasonable privacy interest in property that they have abandoned, Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 (1924), or in items that they expose to the public, such as contraband lying in plain view. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971). They do, however, have a privacy interest in such areas as their homes, cars and correspondence. Although the literal language of the Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant for searches and seizures, the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the Fourth Amendment to mandate a warrant (absent exceptions, like exigency, that are inapplicable here) where the intrusion might compromise a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). Conversely, where the individual has no reasonable expectation that his conduct or possessions will be private, there is no requirement that government agents first secure a warrant. "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in her own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. at 351. Where there exists a reasonable expectation of privacy, the Constitution does not permit government violation of that reasonable expectation without probable cause to believe that a crime is occurring or that evidence of crime will be found. The Supreme Court has imposed a presumption that government officials will first secure a warrant. When officers seek a warrant, they must make a showing of probable cause before a neutral and detached official. This official need not, however, be a judge or a magistrate; the primary requirement is that he be neutral and detached, i.e., not an agent or arm of the police department. Shadwick v. City of Tampa, 407 U.S. 345, 348-50 (1972).
More: Home. As noted above, the Fourth Amendment protects persons from unlawful government searches and seizures within their home or property. Of these interests, the Constitution is particularly protective of the sanctity and privacy of the home. E.g., United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139, 142 (1973) (the "Constitution extends special safeguards to the privacy of the home, just as it protects other special privacy rights such as those of marriage, procreation, motherhood, child rearing and education"); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 601 (1980) ("the sanctity of the home . . . has been embedded in our traditions since the origins of the Republic"); Id. at 590. As one law professor and commentator on the Constitution explained, "[t]he home not only protects us from government surveillance, but also `provide the setting for those intimate activities that the fourth amendment is intended to shelter from government interference.'" Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 1413 (2d ed. 1988), quoting Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 179 (1984). Electronic Surveillance. The U.S. Congress has also recognized that there could be substantial privacy infringements through the use of electronic devices to track the movements of persons or things and to intercept private communications. Such devices include wiretaps, pen registers and trap and trace devices (which record telephone numbers called from a particular phone and the numbers of telephones from which calls are made to a particular phone, respectively), digital "clone" pagers, beepers, and surreptitiously installed microphones. Consequently, in 1968 Congress enacted a statute, which has subsequently been modified to accommodate technological advances, to regulate the use of electronic audio surveillance and interception. 18 U.S.C. 2510-21 (Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 -- Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance, Pub. L. No. 90-351, 82 Stat. 212.) The statute essentially bans the use of certain electronic surveillance techniques by private citizens. It makes punishable as a felony any intentional interception of any wire, oral, or electronic communication that would not be otherwise readily accessible to the public; use of an interception device; or disclosure of the contents of any communication that has been unlawfully intercepted. 18 U.S.C. 2511. However, law enforcement officials are exempted from the prohibition under certain explicit conditions. The primary condition is that the government agent obtain a court order before it may utilize many types of electronic surveillance, such as wiretaps and pen registers. Having obtained approval, the agent must then apply for an order from a federal court. The application must set forth sufficient facts to satisfy the court that probable cause exists to believe that (1) certain identified persons have committed, are committing, or will commit one of the specific serious felony offenses covered by the statute; (2) all or some of the persons have used, are using, or will use a targeted communication facility or premises in connection with the commission of the listed offense; and (3) the targeted communication facility or premise has been used, is being used, or will be used in connection with the crime. The agent's application must also satisfy the judge that other less intrusive investigative procedures have been tried without success, would not be likely to succeed, or would be too dangerous to use. The application must also include a complete statement of all other applications that have been made for electronic surveillance involving the persons, facilities, or premises. Satisfied gwayne? Or do you want further proof that you and your ilk are defending unconstitutional/criminal/treasonous activity?
That's some great info Rhadamanthus and I wish posters would take the time to support their arguments by looking up citing evidence like that rather than posting editorials from biased sources or bombastic self-congratulatory rhetoric.
