tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post114281038918170090..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: Fisking FolkbumRick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-1142862658504753332006-03-20T07:50:00.000-06:002006-03-20T07:50:00.000-06:00Wouldn't want it to ....I think we around on this ...Wouldn't want it to ....<BR/><BR/>I think we around on this once before, but if I say that FISA is an unconstitutional restriction on the President's Article II powers that does not mean I am saying that it is he is allowed to break the law (if the program violates its terms which I don't concede for reasons stated). It means that he didn't break it.<BR/><BR/> The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. <BR/><BR/>I can't see how Gonzales' clarification is important. Nor do I know that Bush resists any type of oversight. In fact, I think Al testified that they'd be happy to look at whatever Congress proposed.<BR/><BR/>As to that view of In re Sealed Cases, I think I said in my posts and in my op-ed and in a response to a comment by Seth and I'll say again now, that I don't think these cases definitively resolve the question.<BR/><BR/>They do pretty much suggest that the 4th Amendment is no bar to this type of surveillance but they don't address the FISA question directly. <BR/><BR/>However, the reaons that one would conclude that there is a national security exception to the warrant requirement are also powerful arguments that Congress can't restrict the President's inherent authority in the conduct of military affairs and national security.<BR/><BR/>And, for me, the bottom line becomes this: What you have is a difference of opinion betweeen the legisaltive and executive branch as to what the law requires. The President's position, even if you ultimately reject it, is reasonable.<BR/><BR/>In those circumstances, if you are Congress, maybe you go to court. Maybe you pass new legislation. You don't pass resolutions of censure. <BR/><BR/>Look Jay, even guys like Mark Dayton are disgusted with Russ.<BR/>This was a self-centered and, pardon the expression, bush league ploy.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-1142859117997196602006-03-20T06:51:00.000-06:002006-03-20T06:51:00.000-06:00Also, in re: In re Sealed Case, I'm interested in...Also, in re: <I>In re Sealed Case</I>, I'm interested in what you think of <A HREF="http://amtalrule.typepad.com/the_amtal_rule/2006/03/lying_liars_and.html" REL="nofollow">this</A>.Jay Bullockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18303687624670151530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-1142855314019331552006-03-20T05:48:00.000-06:002006-03-20T05:48:00.000-06:00Your fancy-schmancy lawyer talk doesn't scare me ....Your fancy-schmancy lawyer talk doesn't scare me . . .<BR/><BR/>However, it is important to note that people from all sides of the issue have conceded that the president's actions violate FISA. His limited briefings also violated the law saying he has to fully inform the intelligence committees. Alberto Gonzales obfuscated so bad in front of the senate that he needed to "clarify" himself a couple of weeks ago, And Bush is truculently resistant to any kind of oversight, checks and balances, or full investigation into what is going on.<BR/><BR/>This is not the behavior of a man concerned about serving his country; it is the behavior of a man concerned about serving himself. That's the point of censure--to tell Bush that he is not above the law or the Constitution's demands for divided government.<BR/><BR/>You seem intent on proving that the president is <I>allowed to</I> break the law if he wants to; I am intent on proving that he <I>should not</I>, and should not get off scot-free if he does so.Jay Bullockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18303687624670151530noreply@blogger.com