Defeatocrats Imploding

[Guest Truth Squad]

QUOTE (Guest @ Feb 19 2008, 06:05 PM)

You are such a dimwit. What you just said, without even realizing it, is that every argument critical of Bush looks exactly the same to you. Of course it does. The instant you see it's critical of Bush, you ignore it. You're not evaluating the arguments. You're not processing them, which is why all your posts look exactly the same.

You've been posting repeatedly without saying anything at all. You just did it again. That's what's predictable and boring.

Not that you'll get that either. You'll never get it. You're too stubborn and too unwilling to think.

Gobbly Gook

In other words, you didn't understand it. I'll explain it to you, not that you're likely to understand that either.

The right-wingnuts who post here rarely go beyond inane slogans. They say exactly the same thing about everything they don't like. That's because they don't go beyond the point of their own reaction. They can't evaluate what's being said because they don't understand it. They think everything they don't understand is stupid. To them, everything they don't like looks exactly the same, and the only tool they have is to call upon their limited vocabulary and call it a name - which is why they say exactly the same thing about everything.

[Guest Keith]

QUOTE (Guest @ Feb 19 2008, 06:05 PM)

You are such a dimwit. What you just said, without even realizing it, is that every argument critical of Bush looks exactly the same to you. Of course it does. The instant you see it's critical of Bush, you ignore it. You're not evaluating the arguments. You're not processing them, which is why all your posts look exactly the same.

You've been posting repeatedly without saying anything at all. You just did it again. That's what's predictable and boring.

Not that you'll get that either. You'll never get it. You're too stubborn and too unwilling to think.

In other words, you didn't understand it. I'll explain it to you, not that you're likely to understand that either.

The right-wingnuts who post here rarely go beyond inane slogans. They say exactly the same thing about everything they don't like. That's because they don't go beyond the point of their own reaction. They can't evaluate what's being said because they don't understand it. They think everything they don't understand is stupid. To them, everything they don't like looks exactly the same, and the only tool they have is to call upon their limited vocabulary and call it a name - which is why they say exactly the same thing about everything.

One nice thing about Obama is that he actually taught constitutional law. Maybe well finally have a president that not only cares about the constitution but understands it as well.

[Bryan]

One nice thing about Obama is that he actually taught constitutional law. Maybe well finally have a president that not only cares about the constitution but understands it as well.

Meh. "Constitutional Law" these days usually has more to do with figuring out the leanings of the Federal Courts than on the understanding of the Constitution as written. So good luck with that one.

[Bryan]

OK, so you don't think the Constitution sets up a system of checks and balances, with its division of powers among the three branches of government.

You're an idiot. But a lovable idiot.

I put the context back together so you can see what I was saying (assuming eyes, brain, etc.)

Guest:

Here’s what it all boils down to, quoting from your post: “. . . the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor, without warrants, phone calls, e-mails, text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S. . . .” In a system of checks and balances, an agency of the Executive Branch cannot be solely entrusted with that power.

Doing so is an invitation to tyranny. Under our system, the courts must be involved to balance the executive branch and prevent abuses of power.

Bryan:

That's not what the Constitution says.

Executive agencies do have the power to conduct reasonable searches without a warrant, in other words under the Constitution the executive branch is trusted with the power to do reasonable searches. Where searches are in effect borderline reasonable (according to jurisprudence), warrants are required. You should also note that executive power extends to searches of foreign persons and locations. The Constitution doesn't put those searches (even if unreasonable) under the requirement of a warrant.

So keep writing.

I will. And you keep right on making stupid mistakes and taking my comments out of context. We expect no less from the Truth Fairy.

All you're telling us is that your ideology is completely contrary to virtually everyone's understanding of the Constitution, and more than 200 years of history. In other words, all you're telling us is how radical you are.

Tell me another story.

[Guest 2smart4u]

One nice thing about Obama is that he actually taught constitutional law. Maybe well finally have a president that not only cares about the constitution but understands it as well.

Obama is an empty suit; one term, no accomplishments, voted "present" on over 100 issues (how's that

for decisiveness), has a wife that was never proud to be an american in all her 45 years, named as the

most liberal member of congress, wants to bomb Pakistan (our ally), has no experience in our military,

naive enough to think he can sit down over tea with the world's terrorists and goes around plagiarizing

quotes from Churchill, JFK and MLK. Oh, did I say he's an empty suit ??

[Guest Twizzler]

Meh. "Constitutional Law" these days usually has more to do with figuring out the leanings of the Federal Courts than on the understanding of the Constitution as written. So good luck with that one.

You're right, but that's because the radical right has spent the past 27 years politicizing the courts.

[Guest Twizzler]

Executive agencies do have the power to conduct reasonable searches without a warrant, in other words under the Constitution the executive branch is trusted with the power to do reasonable searches. Where searches are in effect borderline reasonable (according to jurisprudence), warrants are required. You should also note that executive power extends to searches of foreign persons and locations. The Constitution doesn't put those searches (even if unreasonable) under the requirement of a warrant.

As usual, you know nothing about the law. You think you can just read the Constitution without a legal education and understand it. Problem is, you're bringing your radical right wing biases to the reading, so you're not reading objectively.

The Fourth Amendment has consistently been interpreted to mean that the judiciary says whether a search is reasonable or not. You can argue about what you would like it to mean, but in our law for more than 200 years, that's what the Fourth Amendment means.

But hey, it's your claim. You claim "jurisprudence" says that warrants are only required where searches are borderline in their reasonableness. Show us the jurisprudence, i.e., the case law. Where is it?

[Guest Twizzler]

Obama is an empty suit; one term, no accomplishments, voted "present" on over 100 issues (how's that

for decisiveness), has a wife that was never proud to be an american in all her 45 years, named as the

most liberal member of congress, wants to bomb Pakistan (our ally), has no experience in our military,

naive enough to think he can sit down over tea with the world's terrorists and goes around plagiarizing

quotes from Churchill, JFK and MLK. Oh, did I say he's an empty suit ??

Oh no, no accomplishments at all. Only became the first African American to be a serious candidate for president in our history.

You can spin reality any way you like, if you're sufficiently determined not to see something.

Oh no, he hasn't accomplished anything.

[Guest Keith]

Obama is an empty suit; one term, no accomplishments, voted "present" on over 100 issues (how's that

for decisiveness), has a wife that was never proud to be an american in all her 45 years, named as the

most liberal member of congress, wants to bomb Pakistan (our ally), has no experience in our military,

naive enough to think he can sit down over tea with the world's terrorists and goes around plagiarizing

quotes from Churchill, JFK and MLK. Oh, did I say he's an empty suit ??

All that and he's still better than GW

[Guest Keith]

Meh. "Constitutional Law" these days usually has more to do with figuring out the leanings of the Federal Courts than on the understanding of the Constitution as written. So good luck with that one.

So Bryan, are you gonna give me some contact info for the Marine recruiter or would you prefer to call him?

[Guest Guest]

Obama is an empty suit; one term, no accomplishments, voted "present" on over 100 issues (how's that

for decisiveness), has a wife that was never proud to be an american in all her 45 years, named as the

most liberal member of congress, wants to bomb Pakistan (our ally), has no experience in our military,

naive enough to think he can sit down over tea with the world's terrorists and goes around plagiarizing

quotes from Churchill, JFK and MLK. Oh, did I say he's an empty suit ??

hey, an empty suit replacing an empty head, veddy interesting

[Bryan]

So Bryan, are you gonna give me some contact info for the Marine recruiter or would you prefer to call him?

I see you're still on topic, Keith.

[Bryan]

As usual, you know nothing about the law. You think you can just read the Constitution without a legal education and understand it. Problem is, you're bringing your radical right wing biases to the reading, so you're not reading objectively.

The Fourth Amendment has consistently been interpreted to mean that the judiciary says whether a search is reasonable or not. You can argue about what you would like it to mean, but in our law for more than 200 years, that's what the Fourth Amendment means.

But hey, it's your claim. You claim "jurisprudence" says that warrants are only required where searches are borderline in their reasonableness. Show us the jurisprudence, i.e., the case law. Where is it?

So, you're saying that if you commit a crime and you're caught in the process of committing the crime that the police need a warrant before they are allowed to search your person?

Try Michigan v. Long for starters.

Next.

[Guest Guest]

Obama is an empty suit; one term, no accomplishments,

Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006.

The 2007 Government Ethics Bill.

The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act.

You don't know about these things because you don't want to know about them. Typical ignorant punk.

voted "present" on over 100 issues (how's that

for decisiveness)

How's that for not knowing what voting "present" means? Idiot.

, has a wife that was never proud to be an american in all her 45 years,

Lie.

named as the

most liberal member of congress, wants to bomb Pakistan (our ally), has no experience in our military,

naive enough to think he can sit down over tea with the world's terrorists and goes around plagiarizing

quotes from Churchill, JFK and MLK. Oh, did I say he's an empty suit ??

You did. That's exactly how a rational person knows he's isn't. You know, since you're always wrong.

[Guest Truth Squad]

So, you're saying that if you commit a crime and you're caught in the process of committing the crime that the police need a warrant before they are allowed to search your person?

Try Michigan v. Long for starters.

Next.

In the context of Michigan v. Long, you’re right, to a point. Several kinds of searches can be conducted without a warrant, including a search that is necessary to protect the arresting officer [Terry v. Ohio] and an inventory search of one’s automobile [South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976).] What you’re overlooking is that the courts have defined what constitutes a reasonable search, and the test goes more to the nature of the search than the facts of the case. In the South Dakota case, for example, the Supreme Court explicitly held that the expectation of privacy in one’s automobile is less than in one’s home or office. [Citing Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U. S. 583.]

That being true, where is the case that says that the executive branch can search someone’s telephone records without a warrant? (Michigan v. Long involved a search of an automobile.)

Bryan, you just admitted the point, and you don’t even realize it. The boundaries for where a warrant is or is not required are set by the courts, not the legislature or the executive or the police.

So to answer your question: No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying what I said, which is that our jurisprudence does not say that warrants are required only where searches are borderline in their reasonableness.

When are you going to realize that you don’t know enough about the law to discuss it with someone who does?

[Guest Keith]

I see you're still on topic, Keith.

Still waiting for an answer.

[Bryan]

Still waiting for an answer.

And I'm still waiting for you to grow up enough to deal with the issues without keeping this red herring on standby.

I expect we'll both be waiting a long time.

[Bryan]

In the context of Michigan v. Long, you’re right, to a point. Several kinds of searches can be conducted without a warrant, including a search that is necessary to protect the arresting officer [Terry v. Ohio] and an inventory search of one’s automobile [South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976).] What you’re overlooking is that the courts have defined what constitutes a reasonable search, and the test goes more to the nature of the search than the facts of the case.

How am I supposedly overlooking either of those things? Explain it, if you can.

Do you think the courts contradicted the Bill of Rights by allowing warrantless searches?

In the South Dakota case, for example, the Supreme Court explicitly held that the expectation of privacy in one’s automobile is less than in one’s home or office. [Citing Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U. S. 583.]

That being true, where is the case that says that the executive branch can search someone’s telephone records without a warrant? (Michigan v. Long involved a search of an automobile.)

There's no case for or against (so far as I know), which is why I stated that the telecoms might eventually be found liable based on a law that came into effect with the court deciding the case. As I've written before, the changing face of technology challenges and leaves behind past law sometimes.

Bryan, you just admitted the point, and you don’t even realize it. The boundaries for where a warrant is or is not required are set by the courts, not the legislature or the executive or the police.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that the courts "determine" the boundaries for warrants after the fact in many cases (this being one of them), and the fact that the courts--in allowing warrantless searches such as that highlighted in Michigan v. Long are (supposedly) following the Constitution.

So, either your side (certain elements, at least) has to argue that the courts blew it in Michigan v. Long or allow that the government has the authority to perform some searches (reasonable ones) without a warrant.

Do me a favor and concisely sum up the point that I am supposedly admitting (supposedly without realizing it), TF.

So to answer your question: No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying what I said, which is that our jurisprudence does not say that warrants are required only where searches are borderline in their reasonableness.

Sounds to me like you're saying "I'm Twizzler!"

How's the sock puppet thing working out for you?

"That is, assuming that Twizzler gives a ---- about your little games."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=82568

Seriously, you've constructed yet another straw man--a fairly decent indication that you work in law, because lawyers get in the habit of using fallacious argumentation since it works so well on the average juror.

Here's what I wrote:

"Where searches are in effect borderline reasonable (according to jurisprudence), warrants are required."

Here is how you expressed the supposed true state of the law:

"The Fourth Amendment has consistently been interpreted to mean that the judiciary says whether a search is reasonable or not. You can argue about what you would like it to mean, but in our law for more than 200 years, that's what the Fourth Amendment means.

(bold emphasis added)

My statement reflects the understanding that the government has the ability to conduct reasonable searches under the Constitution (otherwise the actions of the courts in allowing it are unconstitutional).

Now, put aside your lawyerly tendency to reason fallaciously for a moment and follow me on this:

1) Logically, we can divide searches into two exclusive categories, "reasonable" and "unreasonable."

2) You've admitted that the government can do at least some "reasonable" searches without a warrant (Michigan v. Long).

3) We can class searches such as that in #2 as the most reasonable type of search.

4) The Constitution forbids unreasonable searches across the board.

5) If follows from #4 that any searches requiring a warrant consist of some type of "reasonable" search.

6) Following #5, all such "reasonable" searches fall on the borderline between reasonable searches permitted without a warrant (#2) and unreasonable searches for which no warrant should ever be issued (#4).

Just like I said.

So, Truth Fairy/Twizzler, unless you buy the notion that the courts are higher than the Constitution, a reasonable search for which a warrant is not required is a Constitutional concept for which judicial oversight is not required (which has been my point). Moreover, while in English it makes sense to say that the courts have decided where the line is drawn between reasonable and unreasonable, within the framework of constitutional government the Constitution made that determination (with the courts placed in the position of enforcing the constitutional law).

When are you going to realize that you don’t know enough about the law to discuss it with someone who does?

Never. Carry on (but don't dodge my questions).

[Guest Keith]

And I'm still waiting for you to grow up enough to deal with the issues without keeping this red herring on standby.

I expect we'll both be waiting a long time.

The issue is as always, if you support this war so much why won't you go and fight it? It's pretty simple really. Your all for it when someone else is doing the fighting. Why won't you go and do your part Bryan?

[insert lame excuse here]

[Bryan]

The issue is as always, if you support this war so much why won't you go and fight it? It's pretty simple really. Your all for it when someone else is doing the fighting. Why won't you go and do your part Bryan?

[insert lame excuse here]

Thanks for the reminder, Keith.

Some of us had labored under the mistaken impression that the thread was about Democratic politics and then the nature and legality of various wiretapping programs. Thanks to you we can return to the true topic.

[Guest Twizzler]

How am I supposedly overlooking either of those things? Explain it, if you can.

Do you think the courts contradicted the Bill of Rights by allowing warrantless searches?

There's no case for or against (so far as I know), which is why I stated that the telecoms might eventually be found liable based on a law that came into effect with the court deciding the case. As I've written before, the changing face of technology challenges and leaves behind past law sometimes.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that the courts "determine" the boundaries for warrants after the fact in many cases (this being one of them), and the fact that the courts--in allowing warrantless searches such as that highlighted in Michigan v. Long are (supposedly) following the Constitution.

So, either your side (certain elements, at least) has to argue that the courts blew it in Michigan v. Long or allow that the government has the authority to perform some searches (reasonable ones) without a warrant.

Do me a favor and concisely sum up the point that I am supposedly admitting (supposedly without realizing it), TF.

Sounds to me like you're saying "I'm Twizzler!"

How's the sock puppet thing working out for you?

"That is, assuming that Twizzler gives a ---- about your little games."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=82568

Seriously, you've constructed yet another straw man--a fairly decent indication that you work in law, because lawyers get in the habit of using fallacious argumentation since it works so well on the average juror.

Here's what I wrote:

"Where searches are in effect borderline reasonable (according to jurisprudence), warrants are required."

Here is how you expressed the supposed true state of the law:

"The Fourth Amendment has consistently been interpreted to mean that the judiciary says whether a search is reasonable or not. You can argue about what you would like it to mean, but in our law for more than 200 years, that's what the Fourth Amendment means.

(bold emphasis added)

My statement reflects the understanding that the government has the ability to conduct reasonable searches under the Constitution (otherwise the actions of the courts in allowing it are unconstitutional).

Now, put aside your lawyerly tendency to reason fallaciously for a moment and follow me on this:

1) Logically, we can divide searches into two exclusive categories, "reasonable" and "unreasonable."

2) You've admitted that the government can do at least some "reasonable" searches without a warrant (Michigan v. Long).

3) We can class searches such as that in #2 as the most reasonable type of search.

4) The Constitution forbids unreasonable searches across the board.

5) If follows from #4 that any searches requiring a warrant consist of some type of "reasonable" search.

6) Following #5, all such "reasonable" searches fall on the borderline between reasonable searches permitted without a warrant (#2) and unreasonable searches for which no warrant should ever be issued (#4).

Just like I said.

So, Truth Fairy/Twizzler, unless you buy the notion that the courts are higher than the Constitution, a reasonable search for which a warrant is not required is a Constitutional concept for which judicial oversight is not required (which has been by point). Moreover, while in English it makes sense to say that the courts have decided where the line is drawn between reasonable and unreasonable, within the framework of constitutional government the Constitution made that determination (with the courts placed in the position of enforcing the constitutional law).

That is incorrect, Bryan. You don't understand the law. Constitutional warrantless searches are premised on the necessity of an immediate search and/or the impracticality of getting a warrant before the search. Your six-point argument does not account for the time factor.

Most Democrats have argued for a rule that says: OK, we understand the need for an immediate search if the nation truly is being subjected to an imminent threat, or the evidence will disappear if you don't grab it now without getting warrant first. They have said, and I agree, that this should be allowed, but then the government should be required to present the case for the search to the courts within a reasonable time, say 48 hours. Of course, the Constitution doesn't say any of that either, but the word it uses is "reasonable." You can't just blithely say the word without recognizing that the concept of reasonableness has implications for what the law is and how these cases are decided. Yes, that means that you're going to have judges sitting behind closed doors deciding what national security threats are important enough to justify certain methods. That's the way our system works. You can argue that you don't like it, but one way or another, human judgment is going to enter the picture. The best we can hope for are judges who understand that the executive needs some leeway, and an executive who is neither too eager to grab power or not sufficiently concerned with national security. Any way you slice it, human judgment is in the mix.

The Bush administration has refused to abide by the rule of accountability, or to respect checks and balances. They insist on making the decision themselves with no oversight. So far, Congress has allowed them to get away with it. The recent Supreme Court ruling declined to address the matter because the plaintiffs lacked standing. So we're left with an administration violating the law, and the other two branches unwilling to do anything about it. As much as I don't like the current Supreme Court, they didn't do anything wrong here. Standing is standing, and the plaintiffs didn't have it. So until Congress steps in, or we get a president who cares about the Constitution, Americans' civil liberties will continue to be eroded.

The other thing you don't understand about the law is how much it relies on judgment. You can argue that the law should be cut and dried, and I can even agree with you that would be nice. Unfortunately, it would not reflect the world as it actually is. There's no escaping the fact that judges must exercise judgment (and so do presidents, and so do legislators). That's why they call their decisions "opinions."

[Bryan]

That is incorrect, Bryan. You don't understand the law. Constitutional warrantless searches are premised on the necessity of an immediate search and/or the impracticality of getting a warrant before the search. Your six-point argument does not account for the time factor.

Why would my argument need to account for the time factor? Why does it matter why warrantless searches are permitted if they are, in fact, permitted and what reasonable objection is there to calling them the most reasonable type of search?

Your reply to my six-point argument does not address these matters.

You forgot to tell me how the sock puppet thing is working out, by the way.

Most Democrats have argued for a rule that says: OK, we understand the need for an immediate search if the nation truly is being subjected to an imminent threat, or the evidence will disappear if you don't grab it now without getting warrant first. They have said, and I agree, that this should be allowed, but then the government should be required to present the case for the search to the courts within a reasonable time, say 48 hours. Of course, the Constitution doesn't say any of that either, but the word it uses is "reasonable." You can't just blithely say the word without recognizing that the concept of reasonableness has implications for what the law is and how these cases are decided.

The Constitution is the law, and it is supposed to be in light of the Constitution that the courts decide the cases.

Of course, as I mentioned earlier if your view is that the courts are higher than the Constitution (which is implicitly the position of many who accept the view of the "living Constitution"), then of course the courts are just making it up as they go along and objecting on the basis of the Constitution doesn't really make any sense anyway. Just cut out the middle man (the Constitution) and get your law straight from the wellspring: The federal courts.

Yes, that means that you're going to have judges sitting behind closed doors deciding what national security threats are important enough to justify certain methods. That's the way our system works. You can argue that you don't like it, but one way or another, human judgment is going to enter the picture.

Unfortunately for you, my argument is based on the supreme law of the land (the Constitution) while yours is apparently based on dubious appeal to tradition ("that's the way our system works").

The best we can hope for are judges who understand that the executive needs some leeway, and an executive who is neither too eager to grab power or not sufficiently concerned with national security. Any way you slice it, human judgment is in the mix.

And the Constitution puts human judgment for prosecution of war in the hands of the chief executive ("commander in chief"). The argument floated by you/the Truth Fairy (as I recall) was that surveillance requires the oversight of the judiciary. If you think that's spelled out in the Constitution then I'd like to see it.

Instead, I'll probably get another unsupported assertion from you that I don't understand the law.

The Bush administration has refused to abide by the rule of accountability, or to respect checks and balances.

And that's why they briefed Congress regarding the NSA programs? Or are you just allergic to facts?

They insist on making the decision themselves with no oversight. So far, Congress has allowed them to get away with it.

How could Congress do otherwise, since the administration acts on its own without oversight?

Seriously, Congress has been briefed. That's a fact that you should acknowledge, not ignore or bury.

The recent Supreme Court ruling declined to address the matter because the plaintiffs lacked standing. So we're left with an administration violating the law, and the other two branches unwilling to do anything about it. As much as I don't like the current Supreme Court, they didn't do anything wrong here. Standing is standing, and the plaintiffs didn't have it. So until Congress steps in, or we get a president who cares about the Constitution, Americans' civil liberties will continue to be eroded.

One word: Boom.

The other thing you don't understand about the law is how much it relies on judgment.

1) What was the first thing that I don't understand about the law, again?

2) What make you think that I don't sufficiently understand that the law relies on judgment? Is it because you're both lawyers that your arguments so resemble the pathetic methods of Paul LaClair?

Turns out both you and your sock-puppet buddy turned up shortly after LaClair stopped posting here under his own name.

More than a coincidence?

You can argue that the law should be cut and dried, and I can even agree with you that would be nice. Unfortunately, it would not reflect the world as it actually is. There's no escaping the fact that judges must exercise judgment (and so do presidents, and so do legislators). That's why they call their decisions "opinions."

Oh. Now I understand.

Well, you've certainly got the LaClairian condescension down pat. You need to give more unnecessarily long-winded examples and appeal to etymology more often, however. Keep working at it. You'll get there. And no doubt the Truth Fairy will progress right along with you.

[Guest Guest]

Why would my argument need to account for the time factor? Why does it matter why warrantless searches are permitted if they are, in fact, permitted and what reasonable objection is there to calling them the most reasonable type of search?

Your reply to my six-point argument does not address these matters.

You forgot to tell me how the sock puppet thing is working out, by the way.

The Constitution is the law, and it is supposed to be in light of the Constitution that the courts decide the cases.

Of course, as I mentioned earlier if your view is that the courts are higher than the Constitution (which is implicitly the position of many who accept the view of the "living Constitution"), then of course the courts are just making it up as they go along and objecting on the basis of the Constitution doesn't really make any sense anyway. Just cut out the middle man (the Constitution) and get your law straight from the wellspring: The federal courts.

Unfortunately for you, my argument is based on the supreme law of the land (the Constitution) while yours is apparently based on dubious appeal to tradition ("that's the way our system works").

And the Constitution puts human judgment for prosecution of war in the hands of the chief executive ("commander in chief"). The argument floated by you/the Truth Fairy (as I recall) was that surveillance requires the oversight of the judiciary. If you think that's spelled out in the Constitution then I'd like to see it.

Instead, I'll probably get another unsupported assertion from you that I don't understand the law.

And that's why they briefed Congress regarding the NSA programs? Or are you just allergic to facts?

How could Congress do otherwise, since the administration acts on its own without oversight?

Seriously, Congress has been briefed. That's a fact that you should acknowledge, not ignore or bury.

1) What was the first thing that I don't understand about the law, again?

2) What make you think that I don't sufficiently understand that the law relies on judgment? Is it because you're both lawyers that your arguments so resemble the pathetic methods of Paul LaClair?

Boil down the lengthy blather to the point. Bush is arguing for power in a unitary executive, meaning he can search whomever he likes under a claim of national security. Sane people are pointing out that the Constitution imposes a system of checks and balances, and that there's no reason why we cannot continue to adhere to that. We can do surveillance to whatever extent is necessary, but the courts have to be involved to check against abuses, even if they only examine the cases after the surveillance is done. You have to account for the time factor because it's relevant under the law, not to mention common sense.

You're saying no, the executive should be given the powers of a dictator. Sane people realize that won't make us safer, but less safe and less secure. Your way, our own government will become our enemy, in addition to the terrorists.

[Guest Keith]

Thanks for the reminder, Keith.

Some of us had labored under the mistaken impression that the thread was about Democratic politics and then the nature and legality of various wiretapping programs. Thanks to you we can return to the true topic.

Well, that was a lame excuse. Thanks for not disappointing me.

[Bryan]

Boil down the lengthy blather to the point. Bush is arguing for power in a unitary executive, meaning he can search whomever he likes under a claim of national security.

Where does Bush make that argument? Or is that Dorothy's pal the Scarecrow?

Sane people are pointing out that the Constitution imposes a system of checks and balances, and that there's no reason why we cannot continue to adhere to that.

Others, led by Bruce Ackerman, claim that the New Deal represented a constitutional moment that ratified big changes in the distribution of power within the federal government. Still others argue that the added policymaking role of the modern administrative state means Congress ought to be able to impose greater limits on presidential control over the execution of the law. To date, however, a full assessment of the historical record has yet to appear.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=690822

Far from supporting an established practice demonstrating that arguments

in favor of the unitary executive are foreclosed as matter of history, as some scholars have

suggested,584 the record shows that presidents throughout this period consistently asserted and

defended the president’s sole authority to execute the law. To the extent that the historical

evidence supports the existence of an established practice in either direction, it would tend to

favor those supporting, rather than those opposing, the unitariness of the executive branch.

http://www.pegc.us/archive/Unitary%20Execu...d_half_cent.pdf

Would you say that implying that the contrary point of view is insane, regardless of the qualifications of the adherents and the quality of their argumentation, constitutes a fallacy of appeal to ridicule?

We can do surveillance to whatever extent is necessary, but the courts have to be involved to check against abuses, even if they only examine the cases after the surveillance is done. You have to account for the time factor because it's relevant under the law, not to mention common sense.

So "Guest" is another sock puppet writing on behalf of Twizzler, the Truth Fairy and Lord knows who else?

It doesn't follow that I have to account for the time factor because it is relevant under the law. Can you give an argument that doesn't include a logical fallacy?

You're saying no, the executive should be given the powers of a dictator.

That seems to be a gross caricature of the unitary executive theory. You should be ashamed of yourself. Maybe that's why you're posting anonymously?

Sane people realize that won't make us safer, but less safe and less secure. Your way, our own government will become our enemy, in addition to the terrorists.

Isn't it time for your meds?