Posted on 01/18/2006 8:10:29 AM PST by Perlstein
Which of course is a non sequitur, since nobody has claimed that the court made such a holding, and since your contention informs no part of a debate over whether the President acted constitutionally in ordering warrantless foreign intelligence intercepts.
Ah, that would be the following case cite. But even as dicta, the court's observation stands as the soundest and most authoritative legal argument yet advanced in this debate and it follows naturally from the court's holding in Marbury, that "a law repugnant to the Constitution is void".
"We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power."
|
Which of course is a non sequitur, since nobody has claimed that the court made such a holding
So his authority is equally sacred in all areas? That means Congress does not have power to regulate how he enforces the laws domestically?
it follows naturally from the court's holding in Marbury, that "a law repugnant to the Constitution is void".
Not until you establish that it is repugnant to the Constitution it doesn't. And thus far, no court has ever held that any part of FISA is repugnant to the Constitution, or that any law which regulates the exercise of the President's authority (apart from those undermining his authority over his subordinates) is likewise repugnant on the grounds that it violates the "separation-of-powers doctrine".
No, it means your contention informs no part of any debate over whether the President acted constitutionally in ordering warrantless foreign intelligence intercepts.
I don't need to establish anything beyond citing the In re: Sealed Case court's observation that "FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power", and noting that the court's observation stands as the soundest and most authoritative legal argument yet advanced regarding FISA's impact on the President's actions.
Of course it forms the crux of the debate. Congress has regulated the exercise of the President's powers of domestic law enforcement, and these regulations have not been condemned as uncosntitutional. Since they're constitutional, the only way that your contention could be correct is if there's a two-tiered system of the President's powers. Since you've condemned the whole notion of such a two-tiered system, it follows that your contention about Congress's powers over the President is incorrect, by your own standards.
You've tried that lie once before, it didn't work then, and it won't work now.
The topic under discussion is the legality of the President authorizing warrantless foreign intelligence intercepts. Do you have anything constructive to add?
You've tried that lie once before
Only in your dreams is it a lie. At the bottom of #327, you said, "I've only argued that all constitutional grants of power be equally respected". That was in direct response to an accusation of supporting the notion of a two-tiered system.
Get your story straight before trying to continue with this.
The topic under discussion is the legality of the President authorizing warrantless foreign intelligence intercepts. I'm loosing patience with your lies and attempts at digression, either find something constructive to offer to the debate, or go away.
That's about as much of a lie as been told by anyone on this thread. Quoting your own previous lies to support it doesn't make it any more true.
The topic under discussion is the legality of the President authorizing warrantless foreign intelligence intercepts.
Look, if you don't want to own up to your own contradictory statements that I've pointed out, that's your choice, but you'd have to realize that it's impossible to continue a rational debate as long as you insist on maintaining mutually contradictory positions as if they're both true.
I already summed up where you went wrong on the issue of legality here, and you've had nothing truthful to say in response to it.
The topic under discussion is the legality of the President authorizing warrantless foreign intelligence intercepts. I'm loosing patience with your lies and attempts at digression, either find something constructive to offer to the debate, or go away.
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.