Justifying Spying

Published on February 7, 2006 By Dr Guy In Politics

The head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Council Stated the following to justifying gathering intelligence:

"The President has enhanced responsibility to resist unconstitutional provisions that encroach upon the constitutional powers of the Presidency"

I think that takes care of whether the spying was legal or not. Or are there some constitutional scholars that want to argue with the Lawyers Lawyer?

Comments (Page 1)

Dr Guy

on Feb 07, 2006

"Where the President believes that an enactment [by Congress] unconstitutionally limits his powers, he has the authority to defend his office and decline to abide by it,"

More from the same legal opinion.

davad70

on Feb 07, 2006

If he said it, it must be true. It's not as if he'd be biased or anything.

Voyager9

on Feb 07, 2006

But wouldn't his action to defend his office be to veto whatever Act that Congress had put before him? It seems as though this doesn't so much justify anything, but make an excuse for it. The Govt got caught "spying"
The congress said "You can't because of this law"
The Pres said "Oh, that law.. well that's unconstitutional so I'm going to ignore it."

If it was unconstitutional, why did it get passed in the first place?

Dr Guy

on Feb 07, 2006

If he said it, it must be true. It's not as if he'd be biased or anything.

Glad you agree.

Dr Guy

on Feb 07, 2006

If it was unconstitutional, why did it get passed in the first place?

Why do you think the Supreme court exists? Aren't they ruling on the constitutionality of laws all the time? These are laws that were passed, either by congress or the states.

Jythier

on Feb 07, 2006

Mr. President seems to think that the Bill of Rights didn't actually change the rest of the constitution. Do our rights outweigh his powers? Yeah, they do.

davad70

on Feb 07, 2006

If it was unconstitutional, why did it get passed in the first place?

And they even amended it with the Patriot Act, but apparently they didn't have constitutional issues with it then, because their hands weren't caught in the cookie jar at that point.

If they really though it was unconstitutional, and protecting us from terrorism is as important to them as they claim, then they had an obligation to get congress to change the law.

davad70

on Feb 07, 2006

If he said it, it must be true. It's not as if he'd be biased or anything.

Glad you agree.

It's about as true as this statement that Gonzales made yesterday;

President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale.

Washington authorized electronic surveillance? Priceless!

Dr Guy

on Feb 07, 2006

Mr. President seems to think that the Bill of Rights didn't actually change the rest of the constitution. Do our rights outweigh his powers? Yeah, they do.

Who has said that his powers outweigh our rights? Whose rights have been violated? Name them.

Dr Guy

on Feb 07, 2006

And they even amended it with the Patriot Act, but apparently they didn't have constitutional issues with it then, because their hands weren't caught in the cookie jar at that point.

I have said it before and will say it again. Congress does not have the power to usurp the constitution. The patriotic act does not apply. The Patriot act applies to US citizens, not spies.

Dr Guy

on Feb 07, 2006

Washington authorized electronic surveillance? Priceless!

Hey! He has Ben Franklin to thank for that one!

sushiK

on Feb 07, 2006

Was it me or did Speedy Gonzalez sound like a cat on a hot tin roof?
Well, I ummm umm, I well umm, cough, well the terrorists attcked us on 9/11... ummm...

kingbee

on Feb 07, 2006

one more thing i never imagined seeing in my lifetime: american conservatives endorsing the expansion of the executive branch to the detriment of the other two.

maybe yall really are monarchists after all?

Dr Guy

on Feb 07, 2006

Was it me or did Speedy Gonzalez sound like a cat on a hot tin roof?
Well, I ummm umm, I well umm, cough, well the terrorists attcked us on 9/11... ummm...

Dont know what speedy has to do with this, since it is not his quote.

Dr Guy

on Feb 07, 2006

1. Who is endorsing it? I see no one here talking about expansion. We are talking the constitution after all, and that is not an expansion, just a definition of.

2. HOw is following the constitution expanding the Executive?

3. Why are we monarchist for wanting to follow the constitution?

4. Are you going non-sequitar on us again?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!