Do you think the Supreme court will overturn the warrant-less wire taping band.?

Answer 1

No, I think the warrantles wiretapping is pretty clearly unconstitutional. The fact that it may or may not be necessary has no bearing on its constitutionality. It's a violation of the Fourth Amendment and the seperation of powers enumerated in the first three articles of the constitution. If the wiretapping didn't involve one end in the USA it would be fine. But US citizens enjoy certain protections under the constitution.

Answer 2

Given how many times the Court has had to slap Bush down for constitutional violations and overstepping his authority, I don't think they'll let this one slide.

Especially given that there is already a secret court (FISA) where the government can apply for warrants, even after the fact, he has no excuse whatsoever for the conduct. Other than he just didn't want to follow the laws because he couldn't be bothered.

Look at the precedent it sets. It basically makes the entire War on Terror one big exigent circumstance, self-declared, that allows the president to ignore all constitutional requirements.

They can't sustain that. Not of the constitution is ever going to mean anything again.

Answer 3

The argument for the wire tap is under the Presidential war powers. The judge that just handed down the ruling does not recognize the war on terror as being a war. If the Supreme Court believes the war on terror is a fact, even though it is not focused on a singular government of a foreign country as typical wars, then the war powers act will hold true and the wire taps will remain legal.

Answer 4

Does being escorted remote out of your 2d popular count number? after I said Aerosmith on the Mohegan solar section very last month after the educate Steven Tyler went into Johnny Rockets it truly is particularly a lot good outdoors the door of the sector, and he went twenty minutes after the educate ended. i became on-line at Ben & Jerry's next door and myself and a set of different people tried to adhere to him in. protection would not enable us yet I wound up attending to be 10 ft remote from him and that i became so close that i might want to work out the traces on his face. once he said me, he all started calling a persons call. I appeared round and said no one. shortly after yet another protection guy got here out and instructed me that if I wasn't eating I had to go away. I understand him not desirous to be requested for autographs around the clock yet what does he anticipate even as he is going to eat outdoors the door of his educate twenty minutes after it ends? via ways, that became the staggering live performance i have ever seen and it had not something to do with making eye contact with Steven. BQ: Bullet via Bon Jovi BQ2: The exclamation factors for particular!

Answer 5

HELL YEA....People don't know what they want. You want the Government to be more proactive and not re-active to terror attack then you complain about the methods. I mean be foreal the people complaining do you honestly think the government are spying on your worthless conversations. I lot of people complaining don't even know how the process works. People aren't just listening to any and everyone conversation and trust me the people who abuse the system to check on there bf, gf, wife etc are instantly fired. Be foreal wire taping are going after the people that should be looked at....SLEEPER CELLS people it's not just a show on Showtime.

Answer 6

It doensn't matter....after the election the congress is going to give the president this power through a change in the law.

Answer 7

Of course this was just some activist Judge the ACLU had set up where they could file and get it heard by a judge in their camp.

it was expected!

Answer 8

It is a sad joke when the president holds the law in contempt.

Answer 9

i actually doubt that they will because the checks and balance precedent would be too huge

Answer 10

they are bought and paid for and will do the Bushites biding