-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The President Is Not Above the Law
- Thread starter KenH
- Start date
"Unrestrained government power is a menance to society would would result in a dictatorship in the U.S. That is why The Founders crafted the U.S. constitution with limited, enumerated powers for the federal government."---------------------------------------------------------------
This hardly amounts to "unrestrained". That would describe the courts better than it does the Executive Branch.
This hardly amounts to "unrestrained". That would describe the courts better than it does the Executive Branch.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Hopefully that will change in the near future. Can you imagine the Justices Gore or Kerry would have appointed? Thank God for the red states.
Terry_Herrington
New Member
Ken, I am amazed at how you have been attacked for standing for for the Constitution and law. This is especially interesting because most of the attacking has been done by those who claim to be conservative Republicans who's promise was to "restore integrity to the White House."
What is also interesting is how you, someone who actually voted for Bush twice, is treated like you are a true Democrat, which I know you are not.
I wonder what these people think about me, someone who voted against Bush twice. Yea, I voted for Gore and Kerry, and I plan on voting for Hillary if she wins the Democratic nomination in 2008!
What is also interesting is how you, someone who actually voted for Bush twice, is treated like you are a true Democrat, which I know you are not.
I wonder what these people think about me, someone who voted against Bush twice. Yea, I voted for Gore and Kerry, and I plan on voting for Hillary if she wins the Democratic nomination in 2008!
jstrickland1989
New Member
I doubt it.Originally posted by KenH:
I know, Terry. I guess it's up to clear thinking Democrats such as you, clear thinking independents such as me, and clear thinking Constitution Party members such as Jonathan Grubbs, to stand up for our citizens' civil, constitutional liberties on this
board.
jstrickland1989
New Member
He's not been attacked about standing up for the constitution. He's been attacked because the proof is not yet in that the President has broken a law.
Oh great! First of all, you voted for a liar, and then you voted for someone who can't make up his mind on things. And now you're going to vote for someone who is lying about being moderate to get some of the republican vote. GREAT! May God have mercy on our country if Hillary gets into office.
James
They are all three equally to blame, the Legislative has the power to remove jurisdition from the Judicial branch on certain things, they choose not to. The Executive branch can refuse to enforce any unconstitutional ruling from the Judicial branch, they choose not to. So they have all three thrown out the checks and balances of our Constitutional Republic as they work to transform us into a Democracy.
Well said! I have had enough of these flag burners and Ramsey Clarks and other defense attorneys for Saddam and Islamofascists. These Baptists will be taking up a collection for Islamofascists who had their "rights" violated next. What a bunch of nonsense on stilts that the President of the United States cannot act to defend this great nation.
Now it has been posted that Bush was legal but the law is wrong. Brother, psychotropic drugs might not cure that even if one took them as prescribed.
The first significant judicial decision issued after FISA, United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980), actually applied pre-FISA standards to review warrantless electronic surveillance conducted before the statute's enactment. See id. at 914 n.4, 915. The court in Truong upheld the use of warrantless electronic surveillance, concluding that "the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence * * * that a uniform warrant requirement would unduly frustrate the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities." Id. at 913. The court identified three reasons for that conclusion: "the need of the executive branch for flexibility, its practical experience, and its constitutional competence" as the "pre-eminent authority in foreign affairs." id. at 914.
The court in Truong held that "the executive branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when the surveillance is conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons." 629 F.2d at 915. By "foreign intelligence reasons," the court meant reasons other than conducting a criminal investigation or prosecution. Thus, the court upheld the electronic surveillance in question because its purpose "was to determine Truong's source or sources for government documents" so that the U.S. government could stanch the flow of classified information to the government of Vietnam. Id. at 916. The court held, however, that warrantless surveillance was not permitted "once surveillance becomes primarily a criminal investigation," or "when the government is primarily attempting to form the basis for a criminal prosecution." Id. at 915.1
1 The court in Truong did not distinguish between ordinary prosecutions (e.g., of an ordinary American citizen for homicide) and prosecutions of an agent of a foreign power to protect against espionage or terrorism. See 629 F.2d at 916. However, the court also did not explicitly reject such a distinction. On the contrary, although Truong involved a prosecution for espionage, the court never discussed the government's motives for the prosecution, and from all that appears the government never advanced the idea that a purpose to obtain evidence for an espionage prosecution can itself be a "foreign intelligence" purpose. Attorney General Griffin Bell, who testified at the suppression hearing in the district court, described prosecution only as an "incidental" by product of a non-criminal counterintelligence investigation: "Let me say that every one of these counterintelligence investigations involved, nearly all of them that I have seen, involves crime in an incidental way. You never know when you might turn up with something you might want to prosecute." Id. at 916 n.5.
It appears to me that Ken is being taken to task on this issue because he is, purely and simply, wrong on his interpretation of the constitutionality of the President's actions.
I don't care what his voting record or stand on other issues is. On this one, I believe he is wrong. Only time will tell.