[Boot Hill]

inquest:   "explain how simply meeting the qualifications for doing something gives you an unregulable right to do it."

An explanation is unnecessary, when all that is required is to simply note that the Truong court held that the President had the constitutional "qualifications" to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance without a warrant. The "unregulable" part is your fiction, since the court clearly chose to regulate it by discerning between intercepts for made the sole purpose of foreign intelligence gathering, versus those done for purposes of criminal prosecutions.

inquest:   "If [the other courts] want to talk about 'inherent authority', that's fine, just as long as they don't read into the word "competent" an uncontrollable grant of power."

I'll pass along your advice to the court, I'm sure it will be appreciated.

inquest:   "So you're of the opinion that judges make law(?)"

It's not my opinion, it's the plain fact of the matter, not only that they do make law, but they are constitutionally authorized and duty-bound to do so, and that has been settled law in this country for over 200 years.

To the layman, the term "law" is generally understood to mean "statutes", like those passed by a legislative body. But to a legal professional, that same term encompasses, the Constitution, the statutes as well as the decisions that interpret the Constitution and the statutes.

So using the layman's limited definition, no, a judge may not "make law". But when applying the a real definition of the word "law", it is completely correct to state that judges make law.

inquest:   "That puts you at variance with...the vast majority of posters on this board. Just thought you should know."

Appreciate the heads up. ;-)

Boot Hill:   "The doctrine you're referring to, Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 18, also known as the 'Necessary and Proper' clause..."

inquest:   "Nope. Back up four clauses. "To make rules for the government"."

Ouch! This is gonna sting a bit, but you've completely mis-read the 14th clause.

I posted it below, so you can note that there is no comma between "government" and "and regulation", meaning that "government and regulation are a single phrase referencing "the land and naval Forces". Clause 14 has nothing to do with "making rules for the government" in the sense of the three co-equal branches of government, it refers only to the military. Note also, the common military related theme in clauses 11-16.

As I said, the relevant clause is the 18th, the "Necessary and Proper" clause...

"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;"

--U.S. Constitution, Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 14

[inquest]

The "unregulable" part is your fiction, since the court clearly chose to regulate it by discerning between intercepts for made the sole purpose of foreign intelligence gathering, versus those done for purposes of criminal prosecutions.

The former of which, you say is unregulable by Congress, even though the latter constitutes no less a part of the President's granted powers. Thus you're creating the two-tier system of the President's powers that you claim to disdain.

I'll pass along your advice to the court

The advice is to you, in reading their opinions. You're concluding from their opinions that this particular power of the President is untouchable by Congress, when in fact only your "sealed case" makes such a claim, and even then only in dictum.

To the layman, the term "law" is generally understood to mean "statutes", like those passed by a legislative body. But to a legal professional, that same term encompasses, the Constitution, the statutes as well as the decisions that interpret the Constitution and the statutes.

You mean to legal professionals like John Roberts and Sam Alito? I noticed you conveniently amended out the part of my sentence to you where I cited their disagreement with you. De Nile ain't just a river in Egypt.

Clause 14 has nothing to do with "making rules for the government" in the sense of the three co-equal branches of government, it refers only to the military.

Even that being the case, it includes laying down the rules of war. That holds especially true when those rules are designed for the protection of U.S. citizens.