Posted on 12/22/2005 12:03:18 PM PST by hipaatwo
Linux weirdo here - I can read it from `gv`. I was surprized that `pdftotext` produced most of the letter. I had to hand edit the italicized material and paragraph breaks, ran spell check on it, fixed a few obvious quirks, and viola - music!
Anyway, more likely to be read in HTML form. I'm looking for a couple more links to finish the cross reference, and in the process of adding links have found and fixed numerous typos. If sombody else agrees to post the HTML rendition as a fresh thread, I'd make it available (using my profile page) for purpose of picking up and dropping into its own thread.
You can: click on the "T" (Text Tool) in the top bar.....
The President stated that these activities are
" crucial to our national security." The President further explained that "the unauthorized disclosure
of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified
information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country."
The courts are part of the government. As for "we", I don't remember ever being asked what's reasonable. Do you?
Thank you, that's very flattering. In context, however, it sounds like "I used to be a Republican until..." In other words, none of your posts attest to this conversion, except this one--in which you inform us that you've converted back.
By your answer I see that you are so smart you do not even have to read the letter or consider what SCJ's have said in the past.
I fail to see where you get the idea I didn't read the NSA's letter.
I am always here, I just prefer to lurk until an idiot surfaces with specious arguments that begs to be b!tch slapped.
May the Glory of our Saviors birth be upon you and your family.
Merry Christmas!
Semper Reindeer
I'll start a thread using the HTML version you supplied. Give me a few minutes.
President Bush is Protecting America.
The Traitorcrats are Protecting Al Queda.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
The stand alone thread of the Assistant AG's letter is here:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1545787/posts
No gold bricks, no nothing. At the level of arrogance necessary to be a senator, there is no fear of anything stronger than political censure, and least of all fear of the law. Big whoop.
Under Article II of the Constitution, including in his capacity as Commander in Chief, the President has the responsibility to protect the Nation from further attacks, and the Constitution gives him all necessary authority to fulfill that duty. See, e.g., Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, 668 (1863) (stressing that if the Nation is invaded, "the President is not only authorized but hound to resist by force . . . . without waiting for any special legislative authority"); Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19,27 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (Silberman, J., concurring) ("[T]he Prize Cases . . . stand for the proposition that the President has independent authority to repel aggressive acts by third parties even without specific congressional authorization, and courts may not review the level of force selected."); id. at 40 (Tatel, J., concurring). The Congress recognized this constitutional authority in the preamble to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force ("AUMF") of September 18, 2001, 115 Stat. 224 (2001) ("[T]he President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States."), and in the War Powers Resolution, see 50 U.S.C. § 1541(c) ("The constitutional powers of the President as Commander in Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities[] . . . [extend to] a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.").
Do you want to copy that post you just made and put it on the new thread? The legal eagle's can enjoy going through all that.
The courts are part of the government. As for "we", I don't remember ever being asked what's reasonable. Do you?
Good catch. I meant 'the Executive branch', not 'the government'.
As far as being personally asked about any particular law, it doesn't work like that. 'We' express our displeasure through our Congressmen, and if enough people are unhappy about something, they'll either get on board with us, or not get reelected.
The only trouble with that strategy is, 200 years have demonstrated that it doesn't work. For starters, a majority don't want freedom in the first place.
I'm an exDim converted to an Independent so I get to view each political event without the burden of a particular political parties BS which allows me to listen to other people who know more than me and form my opinions.
I'm still reading. :~)
I'm stuck in dial up land celebrating Christmas with the in-laws so I don't have the chance to get online very often.
The fact that you did not mention or rebut any of the information in the letter left me with the impression that you may not have read it.
Shalom Israel:
"The only trouble with that strategy is, 200 years have demonstrated that it doesn't work."
So now we are starting to get down to your basic position.
You are basically saying our form of government doesn't work (specifically voting for representatives) and never has worked (at least in the last 200 years).
If it has been broken for 200 years, how do you propose to fix it? I mean, absolutely, precisely, certainly, with no possibility of a doubt, fix it. After all, you do think in terms of absolutes. No generalities here. Specifics.
Presumably you would start by taking out the "weasel word" 'unreasonable' which the framers of the constitution were so careless (or so devious) to have put there in the first place. What other rewrites of the constitution would you propose? Or would you scrap it altogether?
Many of us on this forum have tried (to one degree or another) to engage you in discussion on this issue, but you have engaged us as though we are using ignorant sophistry, while you, of course, are one of the truly enlightened ones. Perhaps you can now reveal to us your plan to correct the mistakes of the last 200 years.
Absolutely.
You didn't mention where they get that in the Constitution. Nor, for that matter, where the Constitution says that an SCJ can override the Constitution.
Thank you
The Executive Branch holds the Leadership role in Wartime with the President designated as Commander in Chief. It is his PRIMARY DUTY.
Let's look at it this way.....AlQueda and all those terrorism groups will look at Citizenship as a plus if you want a job with them. Driver's licenses are okay but real or forged Birth Certificates or Green Cards will be even better. I am now of the feeling that "hidden" fingerprints should be added to all licenses.
P.S. My Professional License carries my fingerprints in the State files where I do business.
Thank you for your excellent question, Cap. I'm not holding my breath for an actual response.
I see S.I. doesn't have too much money where his mouth is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.