The President Is Not Above the Law

[KenH]

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that the Democrats supported NAFTA in 1993? If so, then you need to look at the roll calls:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1993/roll575.xml

http://tinyurl.com/a5eyv

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by TomVols:
That's a bromide, pure and simple.

It's the truth according the CBO:

LINK

 

[JGrubbs]

Originally posted by TomVols:
James Madison, Thomas Payne, and Benjamin Franklin never had to face UBL and muslim extremists.

And I'm sure all three of them would agree that the government can and should use wiretaps and monitoring to keep track of and protect our nation from UBL and the muslim extremists who are out to kill us. I don't know of any of the 9/11 terrorist or any in UBL's caves who are US citizens, they have no Constitutional rights! I am sure that our founding fathers would also agree that if the federal government needs to wiretap or monitor any US citizens who may be terrorist suspects, then the federal government needs to take the 10 minutes needed to get a warrant.

 

[poncho]

James Madison, Thomas Payne, and Benjamin Franklin never had to face UBL and muslim extremists.

No, they faced the British, French, Spanish, Hessian mercenaries, and natives during their terror campaigns.

 

[jstrickland1989]

Originally posted by poncho:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />James Madison, Thomas Payne, and Benjamin Franklin never had to face UBL and muslim extremists.

No, they faced the British, French, Spanish, Hessian mercenaries, and natives during their terror campaigns. </font>[/QUOTE]While you may have a resonable point, I believe you are comparing two totally different things. In that time, the Americans were seperated by the Atlantic Ocean, but this is not the case today. The terrorist can get a ride, then hijack our planes, and then blow up our buildings and kill 3,000 men and women. And it happens all in the name of privacy. The Indians were most of the time provoked by the white men. So, these are two different times, and really don't even compare.

Also, you must remember, our founding fathers were men just like we have today. I feel like sometimes we take their words and use them as if they are the Bible. Just because Franklin, Madison, or Thomas Paine said it, doesn't make it true. I agree that these are great words, but they are still mortal words that can be proven wrong.

James

 

[OldRegular]

Despite all the garbage that has been posted on this thread by the Bush Haters the President has done nothing that is illegal.

 

[The Galatian]

Whether or not he's committed a crime is yet to be determined. Let's not make up our minds until the facts are in.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

It looks like many here already have made up their minds...or is that all just part of the smear the president political game they play?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[church mouse guy]

The far right and the far left want a Casper Milquetoast for President whenever it is not one of them in the White House. They want Bush to sit around until there is another Nine Eleven and then they want to ask why he wasn't using his authority to keep tabs on traitors, American and foreign. Fortunately, Bush knows the ropes and knows what he is doing.

Here is what the Wall Street Journal wrote to put to rest some of the ignorance that is written on this board--ignorance that borders on aiding and abetting the enemy:

The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703

The disinformation and dishonest postings on this thread must be a great comfort to the Islamofascists, who clearly can see how political enemies of the President are willing to lose the war in order to defeat the Bush administration by questioning Bush's right to act as President of the United States of America. This thread is nothing more than flag-burning.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by church mouse guy:
The far right and the far left want a Casper Milquetoast for President whenever it is not one of them in the White House.

The far right and the far left can speak for themselves, but this social conservative would like to see the president obey the law even when getting a warrant after a search has taken place.

Why does anyone have a problem with the president obeying the law and getting a search warrant after a search has taken place?

 

[church mouse guy]

Evidently, you do not know what the law is, Ken, because you keep siding with the far right and the far left without admitting that you are part of those groups. You seem to want more Americans to die just to do things the way that you yourself want them done in spite of what the actual Presidential authority is. You want the GOP to have only eunuchs for presidents. What you suggest is ignorance on stilts according to your heroine Condi Rice. Why don't you wake up and smell the coffee or at least read the link:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703

 

[jstrickland1989]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by church mouse guy:
The far right and the far left want a Casper Milquetoast for President whenever it is not one of them in the White House.

The far right and the far left can speak for themselves, but this social conservative would like to see the president obey the law even when getting a warrant after a search has taken place.

Why does anyone have a problem with the president obeying the law and getting a search warrant after a search has taken place? </font>[/QUOTE]It's still not been proven that he has broke a law. Let's wait till then to start spouting out such things.

James

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by church mouse guy:
Evidently, you do not know what the law is

I do know what the law is and I disagree with the federal courts' ruling on the law. I gave a link to it a while back when this issue first surfaced. Remember, the federal courts do make mistakes in their rulings. Just look at Roe v. Wade.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

To Ken, protecting the rights of privacy for terrorists and those who colude with them is more important than protecting his nation from another attack...that is, until the next attack happens, and he can use the presidents lack of action to protect the nation as a political football to bash Bush. Those who are smearing the president over this non-issue of speculation based on unidentified sources from a liberal smear rag and nothing more are playing politics with the nation's security and should be ignored.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[KenH]

Again I ask, why does anyone have a problem with the president getting a search warrant after a search has taken place?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

If the attack were to occur while the president was seeking said warrant, you would be complaining about why it took him so long.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[poncho]

Where is the next mind reading course being held again?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
If the attack were to occur while the president was seeking said warrant

I asked about getting the warrant after the search as the law allows.

Here is a link to the law:
LINK

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Your link didn't show much. Just a solicitation for money.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[KenH]

Works fine for me. The only thing I have seen on that site is asking for a contribution. I click "no" and go on to the info I want.

Surely you can do that on your computer as well, Joseph.