Here's the statute: "50 U.S.C 1802(a) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath thatâ (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed atâ (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3)..." (emphasis added) The last part of subsection (a)(1)(A) restricts the warrantless searches to "foreign powers" only -- not to "foreign agents," which are defined in subsection (b)(1). The President cannot use this law to justify warrantless wiretaps on U.S. persons.
The law could have been signed by a previous president. I do think it is bad form for a president to sign a law, then announce he will not obey or follow it on the ground that it is unconstitutional. However, on the main point, you are assuming the ultimate issue, namely whether or not the law is "valid". An unconstitutional law is not a valid law, despite havng been adopted with the necessary formalities. For ZZZ's benefit, let's posit a case where congress passed a law over the president's veto that directed the president to put all the residents of New Orleans into federal penitentaries because of their poor behavior during Katrina. Clearly the law would be unconstitutional on its face. Yet ZZZ says only a madman could argue the president should ignore it?
Look, you gave the same BS argument essentially that Jeb Bush should ignore the court's decision and send in the National Guard to rescue Terri Schiavo. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the President's duty is to determine what is or is not constitutional. If the president through the attorney general gets a judge to agree to an injunction until a law is determined by the courts to be constitutional....fine. That's not what he is doing....
It's needless to engage in debate over allegations that may or may not be true. We don't even know if illegalities have occurred. Even if illegal spying has occurred there's ZERO chance of an impeachment charge. Zero, nada, won't happen. Period. Because of the partisan make-up of the House? Certainly. But even if the Democrats had an edge in votes it wouldn't happen. Not for this. Not for anything that smacks of national security. Would you like to be a Congressman who votes impeachment because of the illegal wiretapping of purported terrorists and then another attack occurs? And what if evidence is revealed hinting that those terrorists could have been apprehended with proper surveillance. Sure the Waxmans, Waters, ect. would impeach Bush for nose picking. But beyond the 40-60 neo-communists who are members of the Dem House delegation, there's little support to prove to America that the Dems are soft on terror, child pornography and drug trafficking.
Minor point: I think it's more than bad form. It's like a grumbling acceptance to a contract. The judge would say, "Is that your signature there, Mr. President? If it is, then you agreed to the law, period." And, I think it's fair to say that by accepting the job of President, the President accepts the duty to uphold land faithfully execute the aws passed by preceding Chief Executives and/or Congress. Main point (your hypothetical): The duty of the Executive Branch is to "faithfully execute the laws." All Congressional Acts are presumed Constitutional until challenged. So, the Pres could either find a citizen resident of Nawlin's and then have the Dept. of Justice file suit on that person's behalf to challenge the law under the Civil Rights Act, OR, the President can simply refuse to enforce the law, and risk impeachment. Which, is exactly what Mr. Bush is doing at the moment. He has stated that he believes that his actions do not violate the FISA, and thus he will not enforce that law, and so it falls to Congress to decide whether or not to impeach the President. Which is why the Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing.
Well, you certainly covered the waterfront with that post. LOL!. I agree with your main point, but I don't really think you need to add all the side issues.
I was wondering zzz if you could point to the part of the constitution that says the the U.S. Supreme court has the power to declare laws made by the U.S. Congress unconstitutional. When the U.S. Supreme court starts treading on the Excecutive branches authority to act as the Executive it is a pandora's box. I think even a liberal court would be loathe to show how tenous the U.S.S.C.s authority over the other branches really is, especially when the President is acting in a time of war against the enemy whether a nation or terrorists. Supreme Court authority is a bit of a legal fiction brought to life by the court in Marbury v. Madison. A fiction we all accept because it seems we should. We do not need a Constitutional Crisis. I hope sane democrats recognize this fact. So again for me the question is: Was GWB only using this surveillance to monitor al qaida and/or other potential terrorists or not. any larger scope and you have to question the motives of an investigation.
Bush's illegal or legal wiretaps won't prevent a terrorist attack. It's too difficult to stop. 5 guys with bad intentions can produce a terrorist attack. In fact, they may already have, like certain gas tank explosions and other mysterious but unspectacular events. Look at the bimbos and morons running the executive branch. They can't help but abuse tier authority. I don't want to live in a society where the government can have unchecked ability to listen to my telephone conversations, read my email, and see what I have been surfing on the internet. And I won't accept their bullshit scare tactics to justify their illegal behavior. If the dems are neo communists, then Bush and the Republicans are Stalinist Fascist Hitlerian pigs who should be lined up and....spanked. "Proper surveillance" is done with warrants. It is fundamental to our way of life and I don't see any threat that necessitates the institution of a police state.
I'm not arguing the effectiveness of wiretapping. I'm merely opining that the Democrats will not harp on an issue that the electorate thinks may be helpful in the domestic war on terror. It's a no-win.