Posted on 12/20/2005 5:01:20 PM PST by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release
February 9, 1995
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information.
Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section 303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical searches:
(a) Secretary of State;
(b) Secretary of Defense;
(c) Director of Central Intelligence;
(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
(e) Deputy Secretary of State;
(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and
(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.
None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE, February 9, 1995.
I understand your point, but to paraphrase Lincoln: "Our constitution is not a suicide pact". Many laws have been written since then..why do you think we have to have a Supreme Court to arbitrate constitutional conflicts?
I am not trying to talk down to you here, but if you are truly interested in this subject...RESEARCH IT. That is what i am trying to do. There are many good posts here on Free Republic where people are discussing the matter.
It may be a good debate..but much of it is settled LAW. The bottom line to me is we are at war with a type of enemy this country has never faced and I trust this President. Your bottom line may be different. I have studied this enemy since 911 and our President is doing the right thing. Merry Christmas to you!
Do you not believe the citizens of the respective states are entitled to know when and if their elected officials are ignoring the Constitution? How and when you would have this reported? Years after the fact when it's unimportant? So you can feel good about getting righteously indignant and claim you would have been against it? Of course those hacks violate the Constitution daily so really what's the difference right?
There were only eight people consulted in Congress. And it was only on 30 occasions.
I'd bet my house the White House knows exactly who leaked this stuff.
Trust me I have researched it. Funny that you should quote one of the first Presidents to ignore the Constitution to get his way (and his damned tariff money BTW). Let's see. Start a war prior to Congressional approval? Check. Suspend habeas corpus (a Congressional power)? Check. Suspend the First Amendment and imprison anyone who disagrees with you? Check.
Some precedent you've got there....
During times of war, unalienable rights may best be protected through non-Constitutional means. This country has a long history of CIC's -- from the War of 1812 and the Civil War all the way to the present -- who during times of war supersede the Constitution.
The check has always been, is it necessary to do so and when the war is over, are these super-constitutional actions brought to an end.
"I'm trying to put together a timeline which exhibits all of the so-called scandals since the campaign and 2000 elections, up until now. This is to show the blatant, and endless attempts to bring down a sitting president. I wish to use it for an opinion piece I am writing as well as perhaps a future website my husband and I hope to launch. Not to mention, ammo against some of our liberal friends.
There have been so many, it's hard to remember all of them and any help from informed FReepers would be appreciated.
Rathergate, and this recent scandal excluded."
OMG..I was thinking the same thing yesterday that someone should do just that. I will be glad to help..after the holidays. The best place to look for the insanity however would be a liberal website of some kind...lol. I am sure they are keeping tally of things even the LSM wouldn't touch...LOL!! It could be fun. Someone should go to DU and ask some nutter to do it. Then we can all have a hearty laugh! (grin)
Hey..billbears..I am not in the mood tonight. Why don't you give me a link to the Constitution Party and let's call it a night.
Sure, if that were the case. But this is settled law, and these powers have been used by every President in the modern era. No court has ruled it to be unconstitutional, despite your repeated assertions that it is.
Just because you find a criminal act admirable (which leaking classified intel to the press unquestionably is), doesn't make the act any less criminal. Nation of laws and all that, right?
That evil Rove and Bush made him do it.
When constitutional rights compete between Individual Civil Rights and the Executive Constitutional Obligations, courts have ruled that the Executive's Constitutional Obligations trump Individual Civil Rights as long as it is kept to a minimum and the rights are fully restored ASAP. The Constitution has had numerous limitations placed on it when dealing with Civil Liberties because society changes. A good example of that is that one can not yell bomb in a crowded theater even though we have Freedom of Speech. President Bush is not the bad guy, he's the majority elected President.
The original Authority
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787;
"the President is empowered to repel sudden attacks without awaiting congressional action and to make clear that the conduct of war is vested exclusively in the President."
Keyword;"exclusively"
Congress authorizes the use of force while the President Executes, however he deems necessary, the use of force.
Yea, lets Newsweak and the NY DNC Times and Fat Timmy Russert and Hissy Matthews and his DNCball reap the consequences of the seeds they sowed with their willing participation in the Plame-Wilson smear job. Let see how much they howl when one of their tame CIA stoodges gets nailed for treason.
Rockefeller says he writes a CYA letter to Cheney in 2003. He says that he saved a copy "just in case". This means that only two people have responsibility for keeping the contents of this letter secret - Rockefeller and Cheney. Yet the NYTimes reports on the contents of this letter a few days ago. Since the NYTimes story was published, Rockefeller openly reveals a copy of this letter to the public, confirming the accuracy of the Times report concerning this letter.
In essence, Rockefeller is providing the same evidence now that the Times based their story upon. So who do you think leaked? Cheney? Or Rockefeller?
Read NewsMax. They have the relevent Case law posted. The Democrat spin lies about the EO are just that. Lies. The Case law supports the WH view.
I'm not holding my breath. I mean the WH has known for over a yr NYT's has had this info. Why hasn't there been an investigation yet? If there's one going on which they do these in secret when it has to do with national security even the secret courts are involved in those investigation...however why does Jay still have a classified status? As fast as Shaffer got his pulled it should be NO problem pulling this traitors classified status.
I have said all along it with ROCKEFELLER..just for the record..lol
Let's see how they cover the 'story' when Rockefeller is in the clinker...lol
Yet another inaccurate statement by you. Your rabidly ignorant view about this matter is painfully ignorant. The law is clear. Bush followed the law. The fact that the law does not fit what you THINK the Constitution says is irrelevant. You have no legal standing to render such a judgment. So your claims above are nothing more then hysteric posturing based on personal political partisanship NOT an accurate statement of fact. Making the above stament clearly demonstrates your ignorance of the Presidential Powers involve nor the appropiate Case Law. Sorry but just your screaming accusation over and over and over is proof of NOTHING BB. You lose again. But then that is why you are a third party type. An inability to actually deal with factual reality.
A few years ago, I watched some press conference that ole Rocky was doing during the 911 stuff. It was after his little 'memo' went out to use some bogus info he had 'when the time was right', etc. He got busted on it(you probably know the score on it)..but he was SWEATING LIKE A PIG and LOOKING VERY UNSURE OF HIMSELF. I told my hubby..THAT MAN HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE!
Rockefeller is going down..soon.
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.