Originally Posted by benjamin
Bolding a few sentences at the end didn't stop me from going back to the beginning. This particular case had to do with FISA issuing restrictions on a wiretap along with authorization. The Supremes decided that FISA didn't have the authority to issue the restrictions. Thats pretty much it.
Are you serious dude? The review was over this question:
QUESTION PRESENTED (U)
Whether the FISC erred in denying in relevant part an application for orders authorizing electronic surveillance where a "significant purpose" of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information, 50 U.S.C. § 1804(a)(7)(B), and intelligence officers conducting the electronic surveillance intend to "consult with Federal law enforcement officers to coordinate efforts to investigate [and] protect against *** international terrorism," 50 U.S.C. § 1806 (k). (U)
Per Curiam: This is the first appeal from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to the Court of Review since the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1862 (West 1991 and Supp. 2002), in 1978. This appeal is brought by the United States from a FISA court surveillance order which imposed certain restrictions on the government. Since the government is the only party to FISA proceedings, we have accepted briefs filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)1 and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) as amici curiae.
AKA, whether or not FISC is constitutional. The petition was filed by the ACLU, good thing they took a break from defending child molesters.
Our justice system relies upon warrants as part of due process. Warrants are actually mentioned right there in the fourth amendment. Thanks for posting it!
Yes...
Due process is mentioned, as I'm sure you're aware, in the fifth amendment. Read 'em back to back and you get an idea of why spying without a warrant is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
Actually I have no idea. Since I'm so dumb, why don't you tell me? You've smartly avoided my bolding of the word
unreasonable.
Oh, I know, you went to the trouble of finding that whole thing with the bold text and all, but let me share a dirty little secret with you: none of it matters if it violates the constitution.
I love how debating with every lib is the same. For Christ's sake, tell me how it violates the constitution!
I live in NYC and ride the subway almost every day of my life. I can't remember the last time I was on the subway and didn't hear an announcement reminding me that NYPD can search me at any time they want without cause. (Unreasonable search; fourth amendment, United States Constitution.)
unreasonable
A adjective
1 absurd, unreasonable
inconsistent with reason or logic or common sense; "the absurd predicament of seeming to argue that virtue is highly desirable but intensely unpleasant"- Walter Lippman
Explain to me how this is unreasonable? It would be unreasonable if they strip searched you or if they went inside your home. It's not unreasonable to delay you for 15 seconds to ensure that you aren't carrying an explosive device.
And that doesn't even get into the fascist bullshit the government can do under the PATRIOT Act.
...which is exactly why I said nothing about it since it's a can of worms not even opening. The USA PATRIOT Act clearly affirms the right of government to do wiretapping on just about anyone they please, I was trying to find examples outside of that. But being the good little liberal with talking points that you seem to be, you made sure to bring it up
Once again, what rights of yours have specifically been violated?
The President takes an oath of office to uphold the constitution. Wiretaps without warrants violate at least one amendment, and often more. It falls under "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Aren't you sick and tired of saying the same thing without yet telling me how it's unconstitutional? Did you even read any of what I posted?
Why? People like you are blinded by their hatred and use personal opinion and talking points instead of examples, precedents and facts. I think it's entirely worthwhile to point out that you are, in fact, just a liberal who hates Bush. It's similiar to watching a Yankees-Red Sox game with a guy who absolutely HATES the Yankees...you know he's gonna say that A-Rod is the biggest POS ever and that he's the most overrated player in baseball. How exactly am I 'ignoring' your position
Are my constitutional and court references detracting from your opinions?
Now try using some facts to back up your arguments instead of BS and personal opinion