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 3)

Dr Guy

on Feb 08, 2006

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

Exactly! 2 cookies for the Doc! The only reason it has not is that no one has challenged it! It will be if necessary, but as long as every president since Carter has ignored it, and congress does not have the cojones to challenge them, it wont be!

ParaTed2k

on Feb 08, 2006

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.

So, do you back the patriot act?

ParaTed2k

on Feb 08, 2006

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.

Absolutely not Kingbee. In fact Prs. Bush NEVER attempted to go behind ANYONE's back. He reported his actions to Congress years ago. This whole smoke screen about "outrage" is just political posturing from elected officials who are mugging for the camera.

They don't care about the Constitutional mandate that makes the president the Commander In Chief. Congress as already exercised their part of the war situation. They don't get to decide how the president does his job. They declared war (even if they were too spineless to use the scary word "war"), they voted to fund the war, they're job is done, unless they want to stop funding it.

Now they are whining.

The cowards in Congress need to stand behind their own actions and quit acting like infants.

davad70

on Feb 08, 2006

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

So who said it?

You said "The head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Council". Who is in charge of the Justice Dept? Gonzales! Therefore it is one of his lawyers.

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

The great legal mind has spoken!

Please enlighten us by telling is exactly how it tries to limit a constitutional power. Please break it down very clearly for those us who don't posess the keen legal mind like yours.

Dr Guy

on Feb 08, 2006

You said "The head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Council". Who is in charge of the Justice Dept? Gonzales! Therefore it is one of his lawyers.

I did not say when! The answer will follow tomorrow! Need a towel?

Deference

on Feb 08, 2006

You love being a shit stirrer! - Doc Guy

Thanks.

I always appreciate a good sport and the understanding he brings with him.

drmiler

on Feb 09, 2006

great legal mind has spoken!

Please enlighten us by telling is exactly how it tries to limit a constitutional power. Please break it down very clearly for those us who don't posess the keen legal mind like yours.

Break it down yourself. I'm not here to do all the work for you...do your own. Go read article 2 of the constitution concerning the war powers given the president and then go read FISA.

Dr Guy

on Feb 09, 2006

always appreciate a good sport and the understanding he brings with him.

Actually, just a small correction tho, while the government may be filled with Neo COnservatives (by your definition), most on JU dont like the big spenders either.

Dr Guy

on Feb 09, 2006

Break it down yourself. I'm not here to do all the work for you...do your own. Go read article 2 of the constitution concerning the war powers given the president and then go read FISA.

I think all congressmen (and women) should have to pass a test on the constitution before taking office.

Deference

on Feb 09, 2006

most on JU dont like the big spenders either - Doc Guy

I wish it was reflected more often in posts, but I take your word for it.

Dr Guy

on Feb 09, 2006

I wish it was reflected more often in posts, but I take your word for it.

Well, granted they are not common. Mostly because the conservatives are battling the hate Bushes. But you can find them. Most of us, (Drmiler, Gideon - he is libertarian, bakerstreet, and I) have spoken out about it. Most of us are conservatives. and not republicans.

Deference

on Feb 09, 2006

Mostly because the conservatives are battling the hate Bushes. - Doc Guy

I can certainly understand that with Col. Gene floating around. It can be hard to criticize one's own when others are already doing it.

But you can find them. Most of us, (Drmiler, Gideon - he is libertarian, bakerstreet, and I) have spoken out about it. Most of us are conservatives. and not republicans.- Doc Guy

I've had a very difficult time seeing you, Drmiler, and Bakerstreet as 'conservative' and have mostly seen you as simply being 'Bush Backers', defending the poor guy's administration policies at any cost. As I've mentioned before, I voted for Pres. Bush first term and participated in volunteer work to aide in his election - needless to say, I've been very disappointed by nearly everything except, of course, the Supreme Court Justice appointments.

I've severe respect for Bakerstreet (though, I understand he might question the veracity of the statement), am heartened by drmiler's turnaround from his first days here (barely a year ago) and, of course, certainly understand Gideon as 'The Libertarian' of the site with some conservative leanings.

As for you, Doc, I'll take you at your word.

I believe one of the main differences at this site between myself and other conservatives here is that I am much more apt to call for accountability and much more critical of 'my own' as I've seen our representatives not holding true to what I believe to be conservative principles and, instead, being led by so-called 'neo-conservatives'.

I think blaming liberals for the ills of the country or framing every 'debate' here at JU in an 'Us v. Them' paradigm is tragic. It ignores the real issue and fails to call upon the actual people in power - the GOP.

"Liberals" are not in power and I don't see them as the group to waste time blogging about when we could be pressuring our own to hold true.

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!