Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The DOJ argument is BULLSHIT, here's why:

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 07:13 PM
Original message
The DOJ argument is BULLSHIT, here's why:
Edited on Thu Dec-22-05 07:14 PM by Walt Starr
The DOJ argument about enumerated powers under Article II of the Constitution is so much bullshit, to whit:

First off, Article V of the constitution is clear about what portions of the constitution amendments would affect:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

And thus, any implicit powers for a president during war enumerated within Article II of the constitution could explicitly be curtailed by any amendment to the constitution made at any time after ratification of the constitution, ergo, Amendment IV trumps claimed powers enumerated in Article II to whit:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This turns the argument of the DOJ on its ear. It is a moot point because claiming power to search and seizure against the people of the United States under enumerated powers under Article II of the constitution CANNOT withstand the precedence of any amendment to the constitution.

The argument of the DOJ is not worth the paper it is printed on.

And that's not even taking into account the fact that this is not a time of war as defined by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. the argument that war changes everything, or 9/11 changes everything
Edited on Thu Dec-22-05 07:20 PM by unblock
has always been ridiculous.

do they think the founders to be complete idiots to not have envisioned war and made the provisions for war that they wanted?
if the founders wanted the president to have exceptional powers, to suspend rights, etc., during wartime, why on earth would they have omitted putting that in the constitution?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. The only way to give a president that power
would be to amend the constitution and explicitly grant that power, because arguments about implicit powers in any article of the constitution cannot withstand explict protections of rights within amendments to the constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. True. However, there has always been a constitutional questioon about how
much power the president actually has, especially in light of the vagueness of Article II and changing contexts. Consider the tragic injustice called "Korematsu v. United States."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. As the questioner asked the other day ...
This so-called war on terror is neverending. Do we simply give up our rights in the name of 9/11? God help us if fear so thoroughly controls our lives.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. right democracy could survive nixon, vietnam, depression, ...
two world wars, more than two centuries of all sorts of changes, but 19 people make a suicide attack and suddenly we need a dictatorship for the next 40 years until "terror" is eradicated???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rzemanfl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
2. They are just spewing bullshit. Logical arguments mean nothing
to them, they aim solely to confuse. This is a standard Rovian tactic he has been using since he was a kid.

Or put the way lawyers put it:

If you have the facts, argue the facts.
If you have the law, argue the law.
If you have neither, argue like hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. They have neither facts nor the law on their side
so you're right, they are arguing like hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pachamama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #2
17. This has been very typical of most of their arguments re. intrepretation
of the law...(ie torture, enemy combatants etc) One almost gets the feeling that they get together in a room and try to figure out how far of a stretch they can sell, even if its absolute and utter bullshit, and then with a straight face they go out and sell it as if its so "obvious".

When this is all over and our democracy saved, I think every single lawyer from Gonzales, to John Yoo, to Chertoff etc should be dis-barred and prohibited from practicing or teaching the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
4. I must just be stupid
Because all I see in the Second Amendment is that the President is Commander in Chief of the military. How does that give him the power to spy on anybody?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. The DOJ is trying to make the argument that as CIC he has certain
implicit powers granted to him by the Authorization to use Military Force passed in the wake of 9/11.

As you can see, I turned that argument on its ear, and I'm not even an attorney!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
7. Aside from their illogical argumentation about enumerated powers,
"justice" hardly addresses the primary question ---- why circumvent the LEGAL process for gathering info in the first place?!

Even if we stipulate broad executive power as commander-in-chief, the FISA law and subsequent legislation establishes a LEGAL (secret and streamlined even) process for seizing information when carrying out that responsibility.

The question then is...why (not if) did they break the law?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Precisely, they broke the law. The law is clear
the only question left is, "why did they break the law?"

BTW, here's the law(s) they broke:

USC Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Sections 1802, 1804, 1805, 1806, 1807, and 1808.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Because they don't want to tell us who they were spying on. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pachamama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. BINGO! That is the reason they ignored & VIOLATED the LAW!
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BelgianMadCow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
8. Hey Walt, where is the DOJ argument?
Has it been expressed since the case of spying? (outside of Bus*s Q&A Do I have the authority? Yes I do)

I'm really curious what piptiful warkaround they have constructed.

Bookmarked & rec'd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. PDF here -->
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BelgianMadCow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Hey thanks! Missed that altogether
must read NOW
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
giant_robot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
12. K&R
Thanks for this post, Walt. Your argument is like kryptonite to stupid. :yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 08:31 PM
Response to Original message
15. America IS freedom of speech and privacy.
It is the very notion of America itself. They fled King George and created this country to get away from the lack of those things. And as such, these are the things that make up the actual definition of our freedom, our country, our reason for existing.

Am I wrong on that?

And this is why we even unconsciously find what has been happening to be so aggregious. It threatens the very thing called America.

Thank you Walt. You have been an invaluable source of inspiration to me, at leeast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. Truman tried to take over the steel mills during the Korean war
the Supreme Court said no-- the President is the Commander and Chief -- of the Armed Forces-- not of the USA and its people.

Nice post Walt-- K N R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 20th 2014, 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC