[SBD1]

Before anyone mentions FISA or the date of this decision, they should remember that we have 3 seperate branches of government and one branch can not take from the other a right given to them by the Constitution.

Because of the President’s constitutional duty to act for the United States in the field of foreign relations, and his inherent power to protect national security in the context of foreign affairs, we reaffirm what we held in United States v. Clay, that the President may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence.

Congress and the Looney Left can pass any laws they want, but none of them will change the President’s powers given to him by the Constitution.

SBD

[saganite]

Because of the President's constitutional duty to act for the United States in the field of foreign relations, and his inherent power to protect national security in the context of foreign affairs, we reaffirm what we held in United States v. Clay, (430 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970), rev'd on other grounds 403 U.S. 698, 91 S. Ct. 2068, 29 L. Ed. 2d 810 (1970)), that the President may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence.


This is a great find but I'm wondering why this case hasn't been cited by anyone. The lack of comment regarding this decision makes me think there may be other court cases since that have muddied the waters.

[Waco]

I'm sure the NYT will pick this up and leap to the defense of Bush,,,hic

[Prodigal Son]

Yoohoo! Do me up baby! Tap my phone! Who needs privacy anyway! As long as it's a Republican doing it why do I care! Happy New Year!

[wolfcreek]

This whole thing makes the ultra-cons and the ultra-libs feel very insecure but, for entirely different reasons. Personally, I don't feel the Gov. is interested in what I'm saying or doing.

[bad company]

Bump.

[Wolfie]

And the 2nd Amendment is for militias, not individuals.

[Cboldt]

Before anyone mentions FISA or the date of this decision, they should remember that we have 3 seperate branches of government and one branch can not take from the other a right given to them by the Constitution.

Jabara v. Kelley, 476 F. Supp. 561 (ED Mich. 1979), vacated & remanded sub nom. Jabara v. Webster, 691 F.2d 272 (6th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983). SCOTUS only reviewed a request to be released from custody, and did not touch the questions relating to the fourth amendment.

In 476 F. Supp. 561 (ED Mich. 1979), the court found the NSA/FBI warrantless examination of the contents of Jabara's communications to violate Jabara's fourth amendment rights.

I do agree with your larger point, that acts of Congress cannot limit executive power granted under the Constitution; nor can acts of Congress limit the rights of the people beyond what is expressed by the Constitution.

[airedale]

FISA was passed in 1978. This trial would have been heard under the law prior to FISA.

President Carter immediately after it was passed signed an executive order May 23, 1979 signed an executive order which said in part: "Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] 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"

I have been looking for President Carter's comments when he signed FISA and when he wrote this executive order. If he thought FISA was unconstitutional why the heck did he sign it and then why issue an executive order like this?

Has anyone looked into the Congressional hearings/debate when FISA was passed. What was Congress' understanding about the kind of monitoring where some of the parties to the conversation were overseas?

[tame]

bump.

[xzins]

The Constitution paints the president's power in very broad strokes. It says the President is: (1) The Executive Power, (2) The Commander in Chief.

As I read it, Congress can authorize War and actions short of War. The execution of that is left up to the Commander in Chief.

Additionally, Joint Resolution SJ 23 of 18 Sep 01 (one week after 9/11) gave the president the following authorization:

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/sjres23_eb.htm

[antiRepublicrat]

Even if it is technically legal. is it a good idea? The government has a long and proven track record of abusing the power to intercept communications. If not this president, then the next, or the next, but it will be abused.

I'm not even sure I trust this president. After all, he showed no regard for constitutional rights in signing CFR and promising to sign the reauthorization for the "assault weapons" ban. He had protesters he didn't like arrested on the sidewalk of the governor's mansion. He was even in an abuse of eminent domain in a land grab for private gain, and don't forget his "There ought to be limits to freedom" quote when referring to the 1st Amendment rights of his detractors.

Why should he care about our rights when it comes to intercepting communications?

[TX Bluebonnet]

bookmark for later

[Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin]

"This is a great find but I'm wondering why this case hasn't been cited by anyone. The lack of comment regarding this decision makes me think there may be other court cases since that have muddied the waters."

Since most people, watch the news, this should be repeated on the air for people to see and hear. Maybe then the extremists, will realize WE know they are not the President.

[scannell]

I understand your point on the separation of powers and that the Congress cannot pass laws restricting the right of the President, but what about the fact that the President signs such law? Does he thereby subordinate his rights to the legislation voluntarily?

[mnehring]

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949

- - - - - - - FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES



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.

[nopardons]

bttt

[tame]

bump.

[WhiteGuy]

Congress and the Looney Left can pass any laws they want, but none of them will change the President’s powers given to him by the Constitution.

yes,

isn't it true that the supreme court also has held, for over 30 years, that killing unborn babies is ok?