2006-08-17 06:04:31 · 18 answers · asked by NONAME 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
As I stated in an earlier post....ONLY the Supreme Court can rule on constitutionality.
2006-08-17 06:12:55 · answer #1 · answered by jpxc99 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
modification IV substances: the right of the people to be shelter of their persons, homes, papers, and consequences, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall situation, yet upon likely reason, supported via oath or confirmation, and extraordinarily describing the position to be searched, and the persons or issues to be seized. This amendent became initially directed at police type searches, and the NSA is interior the agency of nationwide protection, not arresting people for different unlawful acts. and no matter if someone were stuck doing something unlawful unrelated to terrorism, it would not be acted upon, because one million) the NSA might want to particularly seize them attempting to dedicate an act of terror, and a pair of) the NSA might want to particularly the not have the actual undeniable reality that they were wiretapping made public. This heavily deminshes the classes effectiveness. for sure, the Constitutions does not exclude the NSA or something like it, so the above paragraph is actual argued against. even if, the president is charged with the protection of our united states as Commander in chief. Warrants take time to acquire or maybe the particular court docket set up to situation such warrants might want to not be quick sufficient. Wiretaps on terrorist suspects isn't an "unreasonable" seek for, and the structure makes no particular regulation pointing out that warrants should be received, only that the search not be unreasonable. All digital communication, mutually with telephone calls, cellular telephone calls, and emails all go away the suspect's abode. in case you opt for something to be shelter, then do not deliver it out of your position. The modification says that you've the right to be "shelter at your position of abode." also, something to shop in concepts: the worry plot that became stopped interior the united kingdom became stopped because of an intercepted telephone verbal replace. in words of deaths, yet another 9/11 became prevented with the aid of that surviellence no matter if or not that they had a warrant or not. because of all this, I consider the warrantless wiretapping and that i trust that the ruling will be overturned on attraction.
2016-11-05 00:33:37 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ConScum? Is that code for, "Is this the beginning of the end of the good ol boys war games? I hope it is true that the Federal Judge ruled it was unconsituttion? Only Bush's Gonzalez would have the guts to arugue that this reading of the law was appropriate. So, when does the Bush Administration's conduct change?
2006-08-17 06:14:59 · answer #3 · answered by zclifton2 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is the first court and more to come.I urge everyone watch closely and learn something about our system.The government still have the right to appeal and the fight is still going on.I see that the worm of can opens and it is going to be an interesting event for the American people and the world.Liberal do not dance yet and the conservative you do the same sit tight.I am not in any group I just be ready for a show.
2006-08-20 16:57:03 · answer #4 · answered by ryladie99 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
4 or 5 have already said that it was.....so, stand up and dance, it is not over yet....you deserve your moment in the sun....but it is not over...and there will be more courts to come........and did you read the story? She, the judge, said it is the will of the people....seems to me the will is to be safe......and most do not care if their wires are tapped......only those that are doing something wrong care....and then there is the fact that those wiretaps were from incoming, not outgoing, unless an incoming was proven of interest...so what have you been doing that they would want to know about?
2006-08-17 06:13:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Being against warrantless wiretapping is not inconsistent with being a NeoCon. I am both.
2006-08-17 06:15:43 · answer #6 · answered by Brand X 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Many of us will end up crying. Because many Americans will die if the government can't wiretap terrorists.
Would that make U happy?
2006-08-17 06:11:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It will probably be overturned by the circuit court. Because what the NSA is doing ISN'T illegal or unconstitutional.
Of course, one wouldn't have expected a good ruling for Bush from a Carter appointed judge...
2006-08-17 06:41:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Thankfully, it's a step in the right direction. Hopefully, the PATRIOT Act will be tossed out next, and the damage the administration has done to the Constitution will be reversed.
2006-08-17 06:09:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Just so you DUI stands for Driving Under the Influence!
Many DUI drivers have killed innocent people.
I for one hopes the DUI stays on your record for ever!!!
2006-08-17 06:14:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋