Aren't they ruling on the constitutionality of laws all the time? - Dr. Guy

Yes, unfortunately they haven't weighed in on this yet.

Now, with Roberts and Alito on the bench (both I respect and are qualified) I believe we'll see their continued lean toward Federalism.

american conservatives endorsing the expansion of the executive branch to the detriment of the other two. - Kingbee

Conservatives? At JU?

Where?

Oh, I see, you accidentally dropped the 'neo' in front of 'conservatives'.

NEO-CONSERVATIVE; Neo-Con :

Kinda' like Nazi's but aren't quite as facist. Kinda' like conservatives, but, umm....for more spending, big government, nation-building, anti-states rights...

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

It doesn't matter if he is biased. He's the "head" lawman in the US.

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

It's really sad that you didn't even comprehend what DrGuy posted;

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 though Gonzales was the head lawman in the US, not his lawyer.

Laziness, Short-sightedness, Complacency and Incompetence all but gutted our systems of human intel, now we are seeing the same things happening to signal intel.

Do people who are calling for impeachment of Prs. Bush over this realize that they are saying that all the enemy has to do is route their phone calls (and other communication) through the U.S. and our own Constitution will protect them?

Do people who are calling for impeachment of Prs. Bush over this realize that they are saying that all the enemy has to do is route their phone calls (and other communication) through the U.S. and our own Constitution will protect them?

That's not true. It isn't simply a case if THIS VS. THAT. There are legal ways to do the same thing. If there are not, then congress is willing to help them do it legally by changing FISA. They already did what Bush wanted them to in changing FISA when they passed the Patriot Act. If Bush wants more latitude there are ways to get it. But for an administration that has tirelessly beat the "Nation of Laws" and "Rule of Law" drums, it's disingenuous to go about this the way they have.

Do people who are calling for impeachment of Prs. Bush over this realize that they are saying that all the enemy has to do is route their phone calls (and other communication) through the U.S. and our own Constitution will protect them?

i'm not calling for impeachment since as far as i know nobody even wants to blow him in the whitehouse (with the possible exception of karl rove's buddy, the whitehouse correspondent/gay escort net entrepreneur).

with that outta the way, do those people who defend the president realize they're telling bush and gonzales they can pretty much do anything they want as long as they can somehow cloak it in the memory of 911? on it's own that would be bad enough. unfortunately, all this drama diverts our attention from--and depletes energies which could be much better spent preparing for--the next attack.

with that outta the way, do those people who defend the president realize they're telling bush and gonzales they can pretty much do anything they want as long as they can somehow cloak it in the memory of 911? on it's own that would be bad enough. unfortunately, all this drama diverts our attention from--and depletes energies which could be much better spent preparing for--the next attack.

They do not have to "cloak it" in 9/11. Please refer to the constituion and the war powers given to the president by it. Article 2, I believe.

Do people who are calling for impeachment of Prs. Bush over this realize that they are saying that all the enemy has to do is route their phone calls (and other communication) through the U.S. and our own Constitution will protect them? That's not true. It isn't simply a case if THIS VS. THAT. There are legal ways to do the same thing. If there are not, then congress is willing to help them do it legally by changing FISA. They already did what Bush wanted them to in changing FISA when they passed the Patriot Act. If Bush wants more latitude there are ways to get it. But for an administration that has tirelessly beat the "Nation of Laws" and "Rule of Law" drums, it's disingenuous to go about this the way they have.

Realistically, FISA should be struck down as unconstitutional. Any time a "law" tries to limit a constitutional granted power, it's bad law.

Kinda' like Nazi's but aren't quite as facist. Kinda' like conservatives, but, umm....for more spending, big government, nation-building, anti-states rights...

You love being a shit stirrer!

It doesn't matter if he is biased. He's the "head" lawman in the US.

Uh, no.  Just a high mucky muck in the OLC.

I though Gonzales was the head lawman in the US, not his lawyer.

Actually you are wrong.  It was not Gonzales' lawyer!

Do people who are calling for impeachment of Prs. Bush over this realize that they are saying that all the enemy has to do is route their phone calls (and other communication) through the U.S. and our own Constitution will protect them?

Sounds like it.

There are legal ways to do the same thing. If there are not, then congress is willing to help them do it legally by changing FISA.

Once again for the slow. Congress cannot pass a law usurping the constitution.  FISA cannot trump the constitution.  period

do those people who defend the president realize they're telling bush and gonzales they can pretty much do anything they want as long as they can somehow cloak it in the memory of 911?

Hmmmmm.....want some ketchup with that foot leather?

They do not have to "cloak it" in 9/11. Please refer to the constituion and the war powers given to the president by it. Article 2, I believe.

Someone finally posts a pertinent link!  Thank you Doc!