Bush Secretly Lifted Some Limits on Spying in U.S.

Sure he has homeland security to carry it out now also, how constitutional is homeland security anway? FEMA certainly isn't and that just keeps growing with no limit in sight.

 

"".And the Constitution gives both the Executive and Legislative branches of government the tools needed to put the court back in it's place, but they have refused to do so on most important issues. The courts can't enforce their rulings, that is the job of the Executive branch, they may point their fingers at the courts and blame them, but they don't have a problem enforcing these unconstitutional rulings. They need to ignore any rulings that are unconstitutional and enforce only those that are constitutional.And the Constitution gives both the Executive and Legislative branches of government the tools needed to put the court back in it's place, but they have refused to do so on most important issues. The courts can't enforce their rulings, that is the job of the Executive branch, they may point their fingers at the courts and blame them, but they don't have a problem enforcing these unconstitutional rulings. They need to ignore any rulings that are unconstitutional and enforce only those that are constitutional."""
-------------------------------------------------

True, but that has more to do with a weakness in the design. Jefferson predicted we would end up with an oligarchy, and we see his words coming to pass every day at scotus.

 

The only powers the President has is those given to him by the US Constitution. The same Constitution that says there must be a Constitutional Delcaration of War, there was no declaration, so the President using his "broad executive powers" at this time is unconstitutional!

</font>[/QUOTE]The President has broad executive powers all the time and they're constitutional.

If you think he acted illegally, I'll ask you to do the same as Ken.

Prove it.

 

Maybe not. Politicians may be playing politics again.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3395977/

As law professor Orin Kerr writes:


"The dirty little secret about the Patriot Act is that only about 3% of the Act is controversial, and only about a third of that 3% is going to expire on December 31st. Further, much of the reauthorization actually puts new limits on a number of the controversial non-sunsetting provisions, and some of the sunsetting provisions increased privacy protections. As a result, it's not immediately obvious to me whether we'll have greater civil liberties on January 1, 2006 if the Patriot Act is reauthorized or if it is allowed to expire."

 

SOURCE


COINTELPRO

 

And I already proved it on this thread. I said(to quote myself):

"President Bush violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by bypassing the special court set up to authorize eavesdropping on suspected terrorists."

 

I didn't say that we have a dictatorship yet. But just look at the direction we are going when some people are willing to start trading their God-given, constitutional rights for what they think will be "safety".

 

Marbury v. Madison

 

And as the FBI pamphlet clearly states. People who think fondly of the U.S. Constitution (super patriots) are terrorist suspects.

 

Yeah, poncho, I guess if you and I suddenly stop posting here then the rest will know what hap

 

I didn't say that we have a dictatorship yet. But just look at the direction we are going when some people are willing to start trading their God-given, constitutional rights for what they think will be "safety". </font>[/QUOTE]No doubt Ken, what kind of saftey can a government that benefits so grandly from montserous mistakes provide? "Oops we goofed, we need more power and funding. Hand it over, hand it over, hand it over."

 

The independent press has been reporting this all along. The globalist press just keeps us busy bouncing from left to right, blaming the other party. It's really starting to get transparent and a trifle cliche for thinking people, as Pastor Larry would say.

 

We,, I, for one, am completely disappointed. I know that other presidents have done similar things, and I am sure that other presidents will do similar things. I am not sorry I voted for him, but this is a shame.

 

If you guys are under the impression that there is a guy listening to you on the phone, you are wrong. Most likely there is a supercomputer listening for certain key words like bomb assassinate etc. If the computer finds enough words like that, an analyst will review the date. That is all. So as long as you are not planning to assassinate the president, you are still completely private.

No one should be alarmed that Bush watching their indiscretions.

 

Hey guys, they been doin it a long time, now they want to make it legal.

 

Don't worry Ken mi amigo Cisco and I are organizing a posse to come and free you from your evil tormentors we (we, as in Cisco and I) reckon we can probably round up enough volunteers from BB to get the job done, don't you worry brother Ken we'll beat the tar out of anyone we have to, in order to gain valuable information on your whereabouts.

 

All this technology. And yet, they still can't find OBL.

 

He's somewhere lost in the utopian bureaucracy. Don't worry he's a survivor that one.

 

And I already proved it on this thread. I said(to quote myself):

"President Bush violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by bypassing the special court set up to authorize eavesdropping on suspected terrorists." </font>[/QUOTE]Just because you said it doesn't make it so. You have made an accusation that the President violated this act.

Where's your proof?

 

Thanks. It's okay now. I'm back to my computer. The clamorous barking of six Shelties was too much for my potential abductors. Their eardrums couldn't take it.