Does the POTUS have the right, as Pres & CinC, to violate the law & Bill of Rights?

[Quantum Windbag]

A better example, if you could find one, would be an executive order, issued by any president, that either violates the law, or denies someone or some group, their rights under the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution

How about the concentration camps used on the west coast during WWII to cage the Japanese Americans?

edit: uh oh. This is what I get for surfing late and not reading every last post.

OK, how about the Indian Reservations? Are they the equal of internment camps? Or, are they granting special rights to one ethnic group (Indians) over everyone else based on race?

unfortunately, Korematsu v. United States is still good law. one of the three worst court decisions ever written... along with dred scott and citizen's united.

If you honestly think those are the three worst SCOUTS decisions ever you are seriously wrong.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Rep. Conyers Issues Report Identifying 26 Laws Broken by Bush Admin | BuzzFlash.org

If only a small number of these are true, and we all know they are, then the answer is "yes".

 

[Oddball]

Yeah, but GEORGE BOOOOOOOOSH!

Great Caesar's ghost.

 

[Mustang]

Yeah, but GEORGE BOOOOOOOOSH!

Great Caesar's ghost.

What's that's supposed to mean? Is he somehow exempt from abiding by the law and the Constitution? One of the reasons I ask is because conservatives constantly tell anyone who will listen that they are guided by principle. If conservatives ARE guided by principle, then they shouldn't engage in selective outrage, should they?

 

[Intense]

Yeah, but GEORGE BOOOOOOOOSH!

Great Caesar's ghost.

What's that's supposed to mean? Is he somehow exempt from abiding by the law and the Constitution? One of the reasons I ask is because conservatives constantly tell anyone who will listen that they are guided by principle. If conservatives ARE guided by principle, then they shouldn't engage in selective outrage, should they?

Nobody should, that is the point. So are Enumerated Powers. Tyranny is the Greater Threat. No One is immune to it.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Nixon thought so. But he was wrong too.

 

[Mustang]

Yeah, but GEORGE BOOOOOOOOSH!

Great Caesar's ghost.

What's that's supposed to mean? Is he somehow exempt from abiding by the law and the Constitution? One of the reasons I ask is because conservatives constantly tell anyone who will listen that they are guided by principle. If conservatives ARE guided by principle, then they shouldn't engage in selective outrage, should they?

Nobody should, that is the point. So are Enumerated Powers. Tyranny is the Greater Threat. No One is immune to it.

Then maybe you can explain to me why the following happened.

It was revealed in December of 2005 that President Bush had ordered warrantless wiretapping of Americans on American soil since 2001 in clear violation of FISA requirements. This was done even after FISA had been updated that very same year to meet the demands for changes to FISA that the administration said it needed in order to fight terrorism. Bush even admitted to violating the law, but nothing happened. There wasn't even an investigation.

 

[Intense]

What's that's supposed to mean? Is he somehow exempt from abiding by the law and the Constitution? One of the reasons I ask is because conservatives constantly tell anyone who will listen that they are guided by principle. If conservatives ARE guided by principle, then they shouldn't engage in selective outrage, should they?

Nobody should, that is the point. So are Enumerated Powers. Tyranny is the Greater Threat. No One is immune to it.

Then maybe you can explain to me why the following happened.

It was revealed in December of 2005 that President Bush had ordered warrantless wiretapping of Americans on American soil since 2001 in clear violation of FISA requirements. This was done even after FISA had been updated that very same year to meet the demands for changes to FISA that the administration said it needed in order to fight terrorism. Bush even admitted to violating the law, but nothing happened. There wasn't even an investigation.

You think Government plays fair? You think that shit started with Bush? You think it ended with him? Why do you think Enumerated Powers are so important? Why do you think they have been ignored and stepped on since the days of Hamilton and Marshal?

What can I say..... Watch out for low flying drones.

 

[Mustang]

Nobody should, that is the point. So are Enumerated Powers. Tyranny is the Greater Threat. No One is immune to it.

Then maybe you can explain to me why the following happened.

It was revealed in December of 2005 that President Bush had ordered warrantless wiretapping of Americans on American soil since 2001 in clear violation of FISA requirements. This was done even after FISA had been updated that very same year to meet the demands for changes to FISA that the administration said it needed in order to fight terrorism. Bush even admitted to violating the law, but nothing happened. There wasn't even an investigation.

You think Government plays fair? You think that shit started with Bush? You think it ended with him? Why do you think Enumerated Powers are so important? Why do you think they have been ignored and stepped on since the days of Hamilton and Marshal?

What can I say..... Watch out for low flying drones.

What's 'fair' versus 'unfair is subjective. What's 'legal' versus 'illegal' is not subjective.

 

[Liability]

What's that's supposed to mean? Is he somehow exempt from abiding by the law and the Constitution? One of the reasons I ask is because conservatives constantly tell anyone who will listen that they are guided by principle. If conservatives ARE guided by principle, then they shouldn't engage in selective outrage, should they?

Nobody should, that is the point. So are Enumerated Powers. Tyranny is the Greater Threat. No One is immune to it.

Then maybe you can explain to me why the following happened.

It was revealed in December of 2005 that President Bush had ordered warrantless wiretapping of Americans on American soil since 2001 in clear violation of FISA requirements. This was done even after FISA had been updated that very same year to meet the demands for changes to FISA that the administration said it needed in order to fight terrorism. Bush even admitted to violating the law, but nothing happened. There wasn't even an investigation.

Your "question" presupposes that the "warrantless" eavesdropping on Americans on American soil somehow violates the Constitution.

President Bush NEVER admitted to violating any law.

He admitted the conduct.

Not the same thing.

YOU would have to establish that a warrant was required for the eavesdropping in question.

YOU have not done so.

Nor can you.

This is why the reply I gave earlier (which I note you cavalierly dismissed) was directly on point.

The ALLEGED violation of law and the ALLEGED violation of the Constitution simply never occurred.

 

[Liability]

Then maybe you can explain to me why the following happened.

It was revealed in December of 2005 that President Bush had ordered warrantless wiretapping of Americans on American soil since 2001 in clear violation of FISA requirements. This was done even after FISA had been updated that very same year to meet the demands for changes to FISA that the administration said it needed in order to fight terrorism. Bush even admitted to violating the law, but nothing happened. There wasn't even an investigation.

You think Government plays fair? You think that shit started with Bush? You think it ended with him? Why do you think Enumerated Powers are so important? Why do you think they have been ignored and stepped on since the days of Hamilton and Marshal?

What can I say..... Watch out for low flying drones.

What's 'fair' versus 'unfair is subjective. What's 'legal' versus 'illegal' is not subjective.

What is legal versus what is illegal is OFTEN subjective.

 

[jillian]

Nobody should, that is the point. So are Enumerated Powers. Tyranny is the Greater Threat. No One is immune to it.

Then maybe you can explain to me why the following happened.

It was revealed in December of 2005 that President Bush had ordered warrantless wiretapping of Americans on American soil since 2001 in clear violation of FISA requirements. This was done even after FISA had been updated that very same year to meet the demands for changes to FISA that the administration said it needed in order to fight terrorism. Bush even admitted to violating the law, but nothing happened. There wasn't even an investigation.

You think Government plays fair? You think that shit started with Bush? You think it ended with him? Why do you think Enumerated Powers are so important? Why do you think they have been ignored and stepped on since the days of Hamilton and Marshal?

What can I say..... Watch out for low flying drones.

i believe some of us were opposed to those provisions of the patriot act that allowed warrantless searches and said there was nothing wrong with the rule that a warrant had to be obtained within 72 hours. yet certain people thought it was ok because it was a repub president exercising those powers. i said then and i'll say now that NO ONE GIVES UP POWER...

i also said that the right wouldn't like those same powers being exercised by a democratic president.

 

[The Rabbi]

What I gather from a brief reading of Levin's law firm's legal brief is that he is challenging the constitutionality of the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (which is commonly referred to as Obamacare). That was a Bill that Congress passed and President Obama signed into law. The constitionality of that law will be decided in the SC, probably next year.

However, that law is not a single act of the President of the United States acting under his sole authority as president and commander in chief. A better example, if you could find one, would be an executive order, issued by any president, that either violates the law, or denies someone or some group, their rights under the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution

He has allot more influence than you are giving him credit for in relation to Health Care Legislation. Plenty of example there of ignoring Law and Precedent. His finger prints are all over that. In relation to Executive Orders, in relation to Drone Attacks and flying over Sovereign Territory, He is way off of the Reservation. I guess he is practicing for when he becomes Caliphate.

Congress authorized the use of military force. Actually, the granted the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force..." Many people believe that drone attacks, in general, fall into the category of 'necessary and appropriate force'.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You would have a FAR better case if you would have cited the Obama Administration's targeting of an ex patriot American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, for death in a drone attack in another country. Many people make the argument that al-Awlaki was denied his constitutional rights to due process.

He didnt have a right to due process as he was a combatant, not a criminal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then maybe you can explain to me why the following happened.

It was revealed in December of 2005 that President Bush had ordered warrantless wiretapping of Americans on American soil since 2001 in clear violation of FISA requirements. This was done even after FISA had been updated that very same year to meet the demands for changes to FISA that the administration said it needed in order to fight terrorism. Bush even admitted to violating the law, but nothing happened. There wasn't even an investigation.

You think Government plays fair? You think that shit started with Bush? You think it ended with him? Why do you think Enumerated Powers are so important? Why do you think they have been ignored and stepped on since the days of Hamilton and Marshal?

What can I say..... Watch out for low flying drones.

What's 'fair' versus 'unfair is subjective. What's 'legal' versus 'illegal' is not subjective.

Really?

It used to be illegal to stop people on the street and search them. now police in NYC do it 2000 times a day.

 

[bripat9643]

What's 'fair' versus 'unfair is subjective. What's 'legal' versus 'illegal' is not subjective.

If you have followed Supreme Court decisions, you would know the later claim isn't true.

 

[bripat9643]

He didnt have a right to due process as he was a combatant, not a criminal.

Every American citizen has a right to due process, regardless of whether some hack politician labels him a "combatant."

 

[The Rabbi]

He didnt have a right to due process as he was a combatant, not a criminal.

Every American citizen has a right to due process, regardless of whether some hack politician labels him a "combatant."

No, that is not correct. The BoR is not a roving shield that protects citizens everywhere under every circumstance.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204226204576603114226847494.html

 

[Intense]

Then maybe you can explain to me why the following happened.

It was revealed in December of 2005 that President Bush had ordered warrantless wiretapping of Americans on American soil since 2001 in clear violation of FISA requirements. This was done even after FISA had been updated that very same year to meet the demands for changes to FISA that the administration said it needed in order to fight terrorism. Bush even admitted to violating the law, but nothing happened. There wasn't even an investigation.

You think Government plays fair? You think that shit started with Bush? You think it ended with him? Why do you think Enumerated Powers are so important? Why do you think they have been ignored and stepped on since the days of Hamilton and Marshal?

What can I say..... Watch out for low flying drones.

What's 'fair' versus 'unfair is subjective. What's 'legal' versus 'illegal' is not subjective.

Maybe you need to focus on Moral Absolutism V.S. Moral Relativism. I'm more into Moral Absolutism, applied to circumstance, where , no matter who's in charge, Right is Right, and Wrong is Wrong. Moral Relativism is about convenience for who is in charge, condemning principle, on the grounds of inconvenience. Subjective, sometimes, is nothing more than presenting the part of the picture you want people to see, to support your agenda, while conveniently leaving out the parts that might be witness against you. Better to provide the most complete picture.

 

[Liability]

He didnt have a right to due process as he was a combatant, not a criminal.

Every American citizen has a right to due process, regardless of whether some hack politician labels him a "combatant."

In criminal matters, that's absolutely correct.

In matters of war and acts of war, what you just said is not nearly so accurate.

And the question is always "what process is due?"

In the latter case, the process is not what some people seem to believe it is or "has to be."

 

[Intense]

Then maybe you can explain to me why the following happened.

It was revealed in December of 2005 that President Bush had ordered warrantless wiretapping of Americans on American soil since 2001 in clear violation of FISA requirements. This was done even after FISA had been updated that very same year to meet the demands for changes to FISA that the administration said it needed in order to fight terrorism. Bush even admitted to violating the law, but nothing happened. There wasn't even an investigation.

You think Government plays fair? You think that shit started with Bush? You think it ended with him? Why do you think Enumerated Powers are so important? Why do you think they have been ignored and stepped on since the days of Hamilton and Marshal?

What can I say..... Watch out for low flying drones.

i believe some of us were opposed to those provisions of the patriot act that allowed warrantless searches and said there was nothing wrong with the rule that a warrant had to be obtained within 72 hours. yet certain people thought it was ok because it was a repub president exercising those powers. i said then and i'll say now that NO ONE GIVES UP POWER...

i also said that the right wouldn't like those same powers being exercised by a democratic president.

In fairness, in times of Emergency, like Fire or Police Scenes, Accident Scenes, Riots, Natural Disaster, Constitutional Rights can be Suspended. You can't walk away with Material Evidence, You may not be able to leave or enter, you may be forced to leave. You may be searched. Shit happens. The thing is, when and for how long who decides, and on what terms, do these special Powers end? 9/11 did throw us for a loop Jillian. Twice in our lifetime, NYC went into Lock Down. Nobody bitched. We were not Protesting about our Rights being taken away. Nobody was talking openly about Biological or Chemical Threat. Containment was not openly talked about on our Talk or News Productions. They just shut down every bridge and tunnel. It was over before most people were even aware of what was going on or why. There are different issues at play here. One of the most important, Paramount, is insuring a Society still exists to protect.