Ooh, sneaky. I like the way you think Doc.

If the President does not challenge such provisions (i.e., by refusing to execute them), there often will be no occasion for judicial consideration of their constitutionality; a policy of consistent Presidential enforcement of statutes limiting his power thus would deny the Supreme Court the opportunity to review the limitations and thereby would allow for unconstitutional restrictions on the President's authority.

For the rest of the quote.

Ooh, sneaky. I like the way you think Doc.

Guys just want to have fun.

The point you seem to be forgetting is that the administration has never argued that FISA is unconstitutional.

In their 42 page defense of the NSA program, they have never stated that argument. Nor has Gonzales or Bush said they believe FISA is unconstitutional. Therefore the argument that the President can ignore a law that is unconstitutional is irrelevent.

Why is that no one from the administration has argued that FISA is unconstitutional? Because it's bunk.

As is reported in this letter from constitutional scholars, INCLUDING Dellinger to congress;

“the President can act in contravention of statute only if his authority is exclusive, that is, not subject to the check of statutory regulation…Congress plainly has authority to regulate domestic wiretapping by federal agencies under its Article I powers, and the DOJ does not suggest otherwise.”


Link

So...you can keep that wash cloth for yourself.

The point you seem to be forgetting is that the administration has never argued that FISA is unconstitutional. In their 42 page defense of the NSA program, they have never stated that argument. Nor has Gonzales or Bush said they believe FISA is unconstitutional. Therefore the argument that the President can ignore a law that is unconstitutional is irrelevent. Why is that no one from the administration has argued that FISA is unconstitutional? Because it's bunk. As is reported in this letter from constitutional scholars, INCLUDING Dellinger to congress; “the President can act in contravention of statute only if his authority is exclusive, that is, not subject to the check of statutory regulation…Congress plainly has authority to regulate domestic wiretapping by federal agencies under its Article I powers, and the DOJ does not suggest otherwise.” Link So...you can keep that wash cloth for yourself.

Again with the legal scholars. From your link...

With minor exceptions, FISA authorizes electronic surveillance only upon certain specified showings, and only if approved by a court. The statute specifically allows for warrantless wartime domestic electronic surveillance—but only for the first fifteen days of a war. 50 U.S.C. § 1811. It makes criminal any electronic surveillance not authorized by statute, id. § 1809; and it expressly establishes FISA and specified provisions of the federal criminal code (which govern wiretaps for criminal investigation) as the "exclusive means by which electronic surveillance...may be conducted," 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f)

Now the "actual" FISA act....

1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court Release date: 2005-03-17 (a) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that— (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at— (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; ( there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and (C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately. (2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General’s certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title. (3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 1803 (a) of this title a copy of his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless— (A) an application for a court order with respect to the surveillance is made under sections 1801 (h)(4) and 1804 of this title; or ( the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance under section 1806 (f) of this title. (4) With respect to electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection, the Attorney General may direct a specified communication common carrier to— (A) furnish all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance in such a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier is providing its customers; and ( maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence any records concerning the surveillance or the aid furnished which such carrier wishes to retain. The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, such carrier for furnishing such aid. ( Applications for a court order under this subchapter are authorized if the President has, by written authorization, empowered the Attorney General to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title, and a judge to whom an application is made may, notwithstanding any other law, grant an order, in conformity with section 1805 of this title, approving electronic surveillance of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information, except that the court shall not have jurisdiction to grant any order approving electronic surveillance directed solely as described in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section unless such surveillance may involve the acquisition of communications of any United States person.

Someone messed up really bad since section 1811 directly conflicts with section 1802.

There is no conflict.

Notice what persons are addressed in 1802;

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—

(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—

(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or


(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;


Please note that it does not include persons covered in 1801 (

And who is that is referred to in 1801(1), (2), and (3) ?

(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;

Now who does (4) refer to?

(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;

1811 refers to all 4 groups(and more) but 1802 refers only to the first three groups, which are all foreign governments.

1802 - So basically they are allowed to monitor foreign governments operating within the US for one year. It specifically says that there can be no monitoring of anything to which a US person is a party.

1811 - And they are also allowed to monitor just about everyone (the qualifications are pretty liberal in this part) for 15 days after war is declared.

If the President does not challenge such provisions (i.e., by refusing to execute them), there often will be no occasion for judicial consideration of their constitutionality; a policy of consistent Presidential enforcement of statutes limiting his power thus would deny the Supreme Court the opportunity to review the limitations and thereby would allow for unconstitutional restrictions on the President's authority.

The point you seem to be forgetting is that the administration has never argued that FISA is unconstitutional.

My Article, my point.  But I would draw your attention to the above quote again.  You seem to be missing the point! 

As Clinton's legal council said, the only way for the administration to argue that a law is unconstitutional, is to ignore it and let the legislature take it to court!

Thanks for playing.

Someone messed up really bad since section 1811 directly conflicts with section 1802.

neither one matters either.  Since the truth is when there is a dispute betweem the Executive and legistive, the Judicial must adjudicate.  But the Judicial, unlike the other 2 branches, cannot initiate any actions.  They can only respond.  So until someone brings the case to them, they cannot do a thing.

So...you can keep that wash cloth for yourself.

OBTW:  The wash cloth was for assuming it was a Bush flunky that said that. Tsk, tsk!  Gotcha!

As Clinton's legal council said, the only way for the administration to argue that a law is unconstitutional, is to ignore it and let the legislature take it to court!

That's not what he said at all, you've got the quote right there. Stop trying to spin it into what you want him to say and look at what he actually did say.

One could just as easily spin it to say that the President has the obligation to obey the law until he challenges it in court.

OBTW: The wash cloth was for assuming it was a Bush flunky that said that. Tsk, tsk! Gotcha!

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

The only thing I mistakenly assumed was that you could make a clear point. Apparently not, since you referred to someone as "the head", instead of "the former head".

That's not what he said at all, you've got the quote right there. Stop trying to spin it into what you want him to say and look at what he actually did say.

Best reread the line below!  You do love being wrong!

If the President does not challenge such provisions (i.e., by refusing to execute them),

You said "The head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Council Stated the following to justifying gathering intelligence:" The only thing I mistakenly assumed was that you could make a clear point. Apparently not, since you referred to someone as "the head", instead of "the former head".

I made a clear point.  You ASSUMED.  I never stated.  My point was and is clear.  Your rhetoric was wrong.  Tissue?