Impeachment is mandatory

[solarbird]

Impeach

President

Bush

Unclaimed Territory should be read here, particularly with regards to commentary in The Federalist nr. 47. Specifically:

By proclaiming the power to ignore Congressional law and to do whatever it wants in the area of national security, it is seizing the powers of the legislative branch. But by blocking courts from ruling on the multiple claims of illegality which have been made against it, the administration is essentially seizing the judicial power as well. It becomes the creator, the executor, and the interpreter of the law. And with that, the powers of all three branches become consolidated in The President, the single greatest nightmare of the founders.

Comments

[banner.livejournal.com]

I was under the impression that the CNN story was about #2. But it still applies. What law was broken? None that I have seen.

[avram]

What law was broken?

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, specifically Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter 1, Section 1802(a)(1)(B): "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 [...] there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party".

[avram]

Actually, it occurs to me that they might have followed the law. The Attorney General might have certified the above under oath, in which case he'd be open to perjury charges.

[banner.livejournal.com]

The President, under the authority of the Constitution, has the right to engage in intelligence gathering of foreign sources, especially in time of war. The Congress can not write any law that takes away Presidential powers or authority, because that is unconstitutional. It takes an amendment to the Constitution to change Presidental powers.

The wire tappings were of suspected enemies of the USA talking to people inside the USA. Not of people inside the USA talking to each other. That falls very much within the jurisdiction of 'gathering intelligence' that the President is allowed.

[avram]

And the people of the United States have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, under the authority of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court held, in United States v US District Court (1972), that government officials were obligated to obtain a warrant before beginning electronic surveillance even if domestic security issues were involved. Specifically, that "The freedoms of the Fourth Amendment cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances are conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch without the detached judgment of a neutral magistrate."

And why do you put "gathering intelligence" in quotes? That phrase doesn't appear anywhere within the text of the Constitution.

[flashfire.livejournal.com]

I'd be curious to see how many people out there don't see a problem with the Bush Administration trying to effectively take over all three branches of the government.

[banner.livejournal.com]

You know the law has changed since 72, right?

http://www.nysun.com/article/32651 has the details.

And that case applied to survellience of 'domestic groups' not foreign ones.

I'll admit that I'm not crazy about what's going on, however it is within the scope and letter of the law, and we are still at war, even if some people don't wish to recognize it because they wish to turn a blind eye to Islamic Terrorism. When it all ends (and it will, I just hope we win it) then we need to be sure to then be vigilant to make sure the government goes back into its box. It has everytime in the past because there is usually a backlash against the behaviors that had to take place during the war.

[avram]

What part of that editorial do you think refutes anything I’ve said? It says:

The act made clear that a court order isn't the only lawful way of obtaining call information, saying, "A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization."

But the FISA law already establishes legal means other than a court order for intercepting or tapping communications. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether the Bush administration used those legal means. And you haven’t been arguing that the Bush administration kept within the bounds established by FISA, you’ve been arguing that they have the right to break FISA.

Also, the author of the editorial was being a bit dishonest. The section of CALEA he was quoting (Section 103(a)) is addressing the capabilities that communications providers have to make sure that their systems can provide, not the legal conditions under which they can be used. CALEA in general just requires that communications providers make sure that they have equipment and procedures in place to comply with the requests when they are made; it doesn’t establish any new conditions under which any formerly-illegal requests become legal.

And, again, the editorial addresses program #2, while I was talking about program #1.

[solarbird]

The President, under the authority of the Constitution, has the right to engage in intelligence gathering of foreign sources, especially in time of war.
You won't find that in the Constitution because it isn't in there.

The Congress can not write any law that takes away Presidential powers or authority, because that is unconstitutional.
Congress has ultimate control over money, period. If Congress passes a law saying you won't do this, then, if it takes money to do it, you won't do it. The President has decided to ignore and/or "override" that with signing statements many times. I believe this to be fundamentally against the letter and spirit of the Constutition.

Indeed, the argument you're making is a variant of that of the "unitary" executive, and I assure you that the authors of the Federalist papers disagreed with your ideas in this case; c.f. the link I posted fourth, with the separate paragraph. Where you will find agreement is in the Anti-Federalist papers, and they presented the possibility of this kind of amalgamation of power in the executive as a reason to oppose adoption of the Constitution as written.

[banner.livejournal.com]

You know, everyone tells me that the separation of church vs state exists, even though it is -not- in the constitution anywhere. They say 'precedent' and wave their hands and we're all supposed to go along with it. Well the same thing applies here. Precedent. In 92 they passed a law that pretty much allows the whole phone records thing, no one thought it was a bad thing then, why now? Oh right, Democrates passed it, they never thought a Republican might actually -usei it.

Clinton engaged in blatent domestic spying against political enemies and got caught numerous times. Justice stifled all investigations and everyone said it was fine. Oh well, so maybe Bush is taking a page from that playbook? At least he hasn't had a Friday night massacre like Clinton and Nixon did, though Clinton's made Nixon look like a piker and everyone ignored it.

At least Republican's haven't started filing false charges against democrats to get them out of office, and aren't going around shooting up democratic party headquarters. What goes around comes around you know.

What it all comes down to, he won't be impeached, he hasn't done anything to rise to the level of impeachment and if they try to impeach him the 06 elections will see the congress go 90 percent Republican.

[flashfire.livejournal.com]

Ah, here we are going back to Clinton and the Democrats again.

Is that all you have to fall back on when Bush and his Administration is exposed for the liars and cheats they are?

[solarbird]

You know, everyone tells me that the separation of church vs state exists, even though it is -not- in the constitution anywhere.
Fair enough; I was taking a cheap shot, and I retract it.

In 92 they passed a law that pretty much allows the whole phone records thing, no one thought it was a bad thing then, why now?
Oh, I was lobbying against all sorts of expansionist crap in the 1990s. Don't try to put me in that box, it won't work.

Clinton engaged in blatent domestic spying against political enemies and got caught numerous times. Justice stifled all investigations and everyone said it was fine.
No we didn't.

What it all comes down to, he won't be impeached
Oh, I'm sure he won't. I actually think it would be good for the Republican party for them to do it, but I don't think it'll happen.

he hasn't done anything to rise to the level of impeachment and if they try to impeach him the 06 elections will see the congress go 90 percent Republican.
Um, if "they" try to impeach him, it'll be the Republicans doing it. Remember, it's been a Republican-controlled Congress since 1994.

[banner.livejournal.com]

BTW, I apologize for getting a bit snarky myself. And yes I know I shouldn't have tried to put you in that box but I was trying to make the point that many of the people who are screaming loudest now were fully incompliance when this was happening under Clinton.

This is why whenever anyone wants to push any kind of law that curtails freedom or expands government I always try to point out that one day they're not going to be in power, the other side will, and how will they like it then? As we can see currently, they're not liking it at all but I want to rub their noses in the fact that they were fine with it when -their- side did it.

As for the Congress, well the Republicans have the majority, (same in the Senate) but the Democrats still control it more than the Republicans do (again, same in the senate) and that's because the Republicans 1) refuse to act like the WON the election 2) have no balls and 3) got away from their conservative base (which is what got them the Congress in the first place!). If they'd go back to cutting taxes, cutting spending, and reducing government things would be great. This is why they might lose it in 06, and why Hillary is almost guarenteed to get elected President: The Republicans are ignoring their base and acting like Democrats. If they don't start getting tough on illegal immigration, I'm voting straight Libertarian.

And if McCain runs I'M VOTING FOR HILLARY. And you can take that to the bank.

[avram]

Wait, banner, do you think things like the NSA collecting details on Americans is right or not? If you don’t like it, then you should be welcoming those of us who were blinded to this fact by our approval of Clinton.

If, on the other hand, you don’t think it’s a problem, then you shouldn’t have thought it was a problem when Clinton signed the law in the first place.