The Right's Hate for America

[definition]

SpidermanTuba, your thoughts is so asinine and your ignorance is so sickening, you could possibly be from one of the countries we are fighting the war or terrorism in. I don't think the police should need a warrent to search suspected criminals and I don't hate America. I do hate some of the stupid law makers that don't have a clue of what America is or stands for. You can respond to this post if you wish, but it won't be read by me.

So, you hold a great disdain and apathy for our Constitution but you love America. This is a pattern with rightist they "Pledge Allegiance to the Flag..." and then hold the flag in higher esteem than the US Constition. Bow down and show fealty to the Constitution or leave America and renounce your citizenship.

 

[KarlMarx]

Whether the Executive branch has the power to issue warrantless searches and wiretaps was decided by the courts in "Re: sealed case" in 2002.

The FISC ruled that, the Executive Branch does have the power to issue warrantless searches and wiretaps of suspected foreign agents so long as the target of the surveillance is not under criminal investigation. Since the matter involves national security, this power is granted to the Executive Branch under Section II of the US Constitution. The 4th amendment applies only to criminal cases.

Since the judicial branch has ruled the Executive Branch has the power to issue warrantless searches, it is not an "abuse of the Constitution" as some claim.

Since some accuse the current President of abusing the Constitution, then, I would like this question answered, on what Constitutional grounds does the Executive have to authorize the IRS to audit political opponents of the President? This is exactly what was done in the previous administration.

 

[definition]

Whether the Executive branch has the power to issue warrantless searches and wiretaps was decided by the courts in "Re: sealed case" in 2002.

The FISC ruled that, the Executive Branch does have the power to issue warrantless searches and wiretaps of suspected foreign agents so long as the target of the surveillance is not under criminal investigation. Since the matter involves national security, this power is granted to the Executive Branch under Section II of the US Constitution. The 4th amendment applies only to criminal cases.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Could you show me where it says that the fourth amendment applies only to criminal cases?

Thank you.

Oh, and terrorism is a crime therefore, terrorism investigations would be criminal investigations. No?

Since some accuse the current President of abusing the Constitution, then, I would like this question answered, on what Constitutional grounds does the Executive have to authorize the IRS to audit political opponents of the President? This is exactly what was done in the previous administration.

Are you going for the two-wrongs-make-a-right angle here or what?

 

[Annie]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Could you show me where it says that the fourth amendment applies only to criminal cases?

Thank you.

Oh, and terrorism is a crime therefore, terrorism investigations would be criminal investigations. No? Actually an act of war. Treating these acts and perps in the criminal venue was just one of the problems in how addressed 1970's-early 2000's. By treating as an act of war, war powers may be invoked.




Are you going for the two-wrongs-make-a-right angle here or what?

Oh, and terrorism is a crime therefore, terrorism investigations would be criminal investigations. No? No, terrorism is an act of war, dealt with through the war powers of the president.

 

[definition]

Actually an act of war. Treating these acts and perps in the criminal venue was just one of the problems in how addressed 1970's-early 2000's. By treating as an act of war, war powers may be invoked.

War, according to the US Constitution, is declared by Congress and is not an act of executive fiat. Where's that declaration of war?

 

[Annie]

War, according to the US Constitution, is declared by Congress and is not an act of executive fiat. Where's that declaration of war?

By ceding that power back in the 1950's, Congress has basically abdicated that right through allowing the President to invoke war powers, then funding the war. That is what has happened and continues to happen. Defacto.

 

[definition]

By ceding that power back in the 1950's, Congress has basically abdicated that right through allowing the President to invoke war powers, then funding the war. That is what has happened and continues to happen. Defacto.

Do you honestly believe that the framers of the constitution ever envisioned Congress abdicating its powers to declare war by delegating it to the executive? I think not. It is an unconstitutional construct. The Constitution has not been amended to delegate the power to declare war to the executive, therefore it is solely within the powers of the legislative not executive branch.

 

[Annie]

Do you honestly believe that the framers of the constitution ever envisioned Congress abdicating its powers to declare war by delegating it to the executive? I think not. It is an unconstitutional construct. The Constitution has not been amended to delegate the power to declare war to the executive, therefore it is solely within the powers of the legislative not executive branch.

Heck the powers between the branches have gone back and forth, some was envisioned-the inevitability of the presidency becoming stronger during times of war was the most obvious. Read the private letters, even the Federalists papers.

Judicial review wasn't 'forseen', yet most of the framers were alive when it was 'established' and didn't throw hissy fits for the most part.

Your argument for originalism isn't holding here...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

War, according to the US Constitution, is declared by Congress and is not an act of executive fiat. Where's that declaration of war?

Crap like this is why most people feel dems don't take the war on terror seriously.

 

[KarlMarx]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Could you show me where it says that the fourth amendment applies only to criminal cases?

Thank you.

for the sake of brevity, I'll refer you to a previous post....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=405337&postcount=5

Oh, and terrorism is a crime therefore, terrorism investigations would be criminal investigations. No?

Domestic terrorism ala Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing is a criminal matter. Terrorism that is carried out by agents of a foreign power is in the realm of FISA.

The reason why 9/11 happened was this sort of thinking. You cannot make national security issues criminal matters, that would tie the hands of those who are trying to defend our country.

Are you going for the two-wrongs-make-a-right angle here or what?

Is that what it is? It just seems odd that the Left is hyperventilating over perceived abuses of power of a Republican president but has given a Democrat president a pass to do anything he damn well pleases, including perjuring himself, obstructing justice and suborning perjury. The IRS audits are just one case of Clinton's abuses of power.

Furthermore, the war on terrorism is a term, just like "The Cold War". Both were undeclared wars in a matter of speaking. The Congress authorized the Executive Branch to warrantless wiretaps and searches when it passed FISA in 1978, the judiciary has also reviewed this and agrees that the Executive Branch is granted this power under the Constitution. Just because you don't like it, does not make the matter "an abuse of power" or "disregarding the Constitution".

Congress also authorizes the Executive Branch to do the very things you object to when it funds such activities and reviews the Executive Branch's activities in its classified Intelligence Committee hearings.

Perhaps you ought to stop depending on Michael Moore and his merry band of charlatans for your facts.

 

[definition]

The Congress authorized the Executive Branch to warrantless wiretaps and searches when it passed FISA in 1978, the judiciary has also reviewed this and agrees that the Executive Branch is granted this power under the Constitution..

Stop spreading that lie. Lies are bad for intellectual discussion. Congress did not EVER authorize the executive branch to wiretap without a warrant when one of the parties is an American citizen. That's already been proven.

Oh and as for that mumbo jumbo about Clinton lying about his adulterous affair --- enough already --- how many American soldiers died because Clinton got a head job and lied about it?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Stop spreading that lie. Lies are bad for intellectual discussion. Congress did not EVER authorize the executive branch to wiretap without a warrant when one of the parties is an American citizen. That's already been proven.

Oh and as for that mumbo jumbo about Clinton lying about his adulterous affair --- enough already --- how many American soldiers died because Clinton got a head job and lied about it?

Why do you protect terrorist communication so vociferously? Do you want them to win?

 

[definition]

Why do you protect terrorist communication so vociferously? Do you want them to win?

Yeh, exactly. You win. Could you be just a tad more obtuse. I find your reasoning amusing.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yeh, exactly. You win. Could you be just a tad more obtuse. I find your reasoning amusing.

I find your concern for terrorist rights appalling.

 

[KarlMarx]

Stop spreading that lie. Lies are bad for intellectual discussion. Congress did not EVER authorize the executive branch to wiretap without a warrant when one of the parties is an American citizen. That's already been proven.

Oh and as for that mumbo jumbo about Clinton lying about his adulterous affair --- enough already --- how many American soldiers died because Clinton got a head job and lied about it?

The "lie" that I am spreading is known as the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978". That is the authorization I am talking about.

As for "mumbo jumbo", that's called "TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL CODE".... Let me clue you in Einstein, lying under oath is PERJURY, comprende? Telling people to lying under oath is SUBORNATION OF PERJURY, got that? So don't give me the Leftist spin that Clinton didn't do anything illegal and that it was all a great big Right Wing Conspiracy. The guy broke the law, he should be in prison, the reason he isn't is because of politics.

If you lied on your income tax, that's PERJURY (read the small print when you sign your tax form... it starts with the words.... "under penalty of perjury".... that means YOU go to JAIL (and don't get to pass GO or collect $200)

As for the lie that Bush lied about Iraq WMDs to get us involved in a war is in itself a lie. The 9/11 commission investigated and came to the conclusion that Bush was not involved in any deliberate attempt to mislead the American public or Congress on WMDs. Recently declassified documents captured during the Iraqi war now show that if anyone lied, it was Saddam Hussein. If he had no WMDs, he misled even his highest ranking generals into believing they existed..

 

[Gunny]

Stop spreading that lie. Lies are bad for intellectual discussion. Congress did not EVER authorize the executive branch to wiretap without a warrant when one of the parties is an American citizen. That's already been proven.

Oh and as for that mumbo jumbo about Clinton lying about his adulterous affair --- enough already --- how many American soldiers died because Clinton got a head job and lied about it?

What would YOU know about intellectual discussion? It IS quite obvious you are up to snuff on the lying though.

Try educating yourself Mr Intellectual. The wiretaps are not on American citizens. Just another lie spread the likes of you. If an American citizen such as yourself happens to be on the other end of an international wiretap, tough shit.

A rational-thinking, intellectual humanoid would WANT to know just who the Hell a terrorist/terrorist organization was communicating with. But you'd rather bypass the common sense for the sake of partisan hackery.

How many people have died because Clinton ignored Hussein and didn't do a thing about him when he should have back around 93?

 

[Gunny]

I find your concern for terrorist rights appalling.

He's all about anyone or thing that is abnormal or generally unacceptable having more rights than normal people. First it was fags, not it's terrorists/terrorist sympathizers.

 

[manu1959]

Originally Posted by definition
Oh and as for that mumbo jumbo about Clinton lying about his adulterous affair --- enough already --- how many American soldiers died because Clinton got a head job and lied about it?

all the ones in somalia

the ones on the cole

various embassies

shall i go on?

 

[manu1959]

I find your concern for terrorist rights appalling.

i agree....terrorists have no rights.