Posted on 02/16/2006 11:23:39 AM PST by hipaatwo
More important than the 4th Amendment issue, those courts concluded that the President had the inherent constitutional right to conduct foreign counter intelligence intercepts AND that those intercepts didn't violate the 4th Amendment.
There is nothing unsettled about the matter, the courts have recognized the President constitutional authority in this matter. Now if someone wants to pretend that Congress has some magical authority that supersedes the doctrine of the separation of powers to infringe upon the President's authority, of course they are free to bring that case before the courts, but in the mean time, the Constitution trumps the laws of Congress, and the President's power stands.
Oh, I grasp your argument all right, I just find it unpersuasive. Congress was given no authority to infringe upon the rights granted by the Constitution.
It's not an argument. It's a simple statement regarding two english language words. "Inherent" doesn't mean "exclusive". If you doubt that statement, you need a dictionary, not persuasion.
>>>Sounds like this "request for spying information" was filed on behalf of Al-Qaeda.
Close. I think it was filed on behalf of Rachel Meeropol.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1559773/posts
Rosenbergs’ Granddaughter Sues NSA Over Spying - Rachel Meeropol
>>>Who are they?
Might be the The Children Of Resistance as per this post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1559773/posts
Rosenbergs’ Granddaughter Sues NSA Over Spying - Rachel Meeropol
There are several arguments in that regard. Care to expand (a little) on yours?
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.