LIBERAL DEMOCRATS: If President Bush has Violated The Constitution...?

Question

(as if you uneducated lemmings would even know), where are the Orders for injunctive relief that your Lemming Leaders & Lawyers have obtained from the U.S. District Courts, Circuit Courts of Appeal, and U.S. Supreme Court? Give us the name of the cases and explain the Orders.

Real Americans,

Is this hilarious or what? The crickets are chirping. Deafening silence. Not a single case cited. I thought there were endless violations of the Constitution.

Owned!

Hillary Lost to Monica

Answer 1

Hahaha! You asked a perfectly answer-less question!

Answer 2

Under the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be based on probable cause to believe that a crime has been or is being committed. This is not the general rule under FISA [the statute creating the requirements for domestic surveillance by intelligence agencies]: surveillance under FISA is permitted based on a finding of probable cause that the surveillance target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, irrespective of whether the target is suspected of engaging in criminal activity. However, if the target is a "U.S. person," there must be probable cause to believe that the U.S. person's activities may involve espionage or other similar conduct in violation of the criminal statutes of the United States. Nor may a U.S. person be determined to be an agent of a foreign power "solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.""
So: FISA warrants do not require any evidence of actual criminal activity, and might seem to be in conflict with the Fourth Amendment. The reason they have been held not to be unconstitutional is simply that they are not supposed to be used for criminal investigations; for this reason, I'm not sure this new proposal, according to which intelligence agencies would be allowed to use FISA searches to conduct criminal investigations, is not itself unconstitutional. But it gets worse: as of 2002:


"The FISA review court was created by Congress along with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in 1978 to authorize search and surveillance warrants for foreign intelligence targets. The review court has never convened because the lower court, known as the FISA court, has never turned down a government surveillance request. The court has approved approximately 13,000 applications since its inception. And just once, in 1997, the government withdrew a request that the court had found deficient."
That's right: as of 2002, only one request for a warrant had been deemed inadequate. Ever. Moreover, since no one has to inform the object of a FISA warrant that that warrant exists, people do not generally get to challenge them. Everything about it is secret.

The 'wall' separating intelligence agencies from law enforcement agencies existed because of the different purposes for which the two collect information, and the different rules to which they are subject. The wall was never impermeable: information obtained through FISA warrants can be, and has been, used in criminal trials. But it exists for a very good reason: to allow intelligence agencies to collect information on agents of foreign powers without allowing them to spy on citizens more generally, and to prevent the government from using FISA warrants, with their looser rules, whenever it can't get a normal warrant.

Giving intelligence agencies the power to carry out criminal investigations against US civilians would gut the wall entirely. And it would do so without overcoming the one real drawback of the wall: the fact that some information cannot be shared between agencies. The proposals to grant greater powers to intelligence agencies simply seem to multiply the number of agencies that can investigate citizens, not to ensure that those agencies share information with one another. (One of the many questions I have about these proposals is: why do we need another agency empowered to do criminal investigations in the US? Doesn't the FBI suffice?)

Answer 3

It has nothing to do with the courts. There are not enough Democrats in the Senate to make up the 2/3 majority for conviction. It would take overwhelming proof to convince Republicans to vote for it.

Answer 4

not to mention the supreme court just ruled that Bush is right and the gitmo-terrorists can't appeal through the American court system. So i guess that's not a good example.

Answer 5

Hmm... baiting question... namecalling to those whom she's asking...

Looks like somebody needs a Bahamavention(tm).

-------------

Two.Pistolas - That wasn't the Supreme Court, it was a lower court. Appeal is sure to come.


Big-Iron - You mean "redundancy". The word is "redundancy". "Oxymoron" means opposite. Takes a brainy Republic like yourself to conflate those words. Oh snap, now you have to look up "conflate" too.

Answer 6

You mean the "man" who called the constitution a GD piece of paper?

Answer 7

Funny, Big Iron talks about anti-american this and comunist that while sporting the logo of a NAZI automobile company! No oxy, just moron.

Answer 8

I love the way they try to quote the Constitution and hack it up. That is a little more NULL during war-time. But they still don't get it, do they? :>)

I'm with you. GWB didn't violate the Constitution. They are so full of it...and they keep digging so deep to try and find something, that their nail-beds are bleeding.

Answer 9

don't you remember when the Supreme Court told him his trials were unconstitutional? there's one right there...

it was all over the news, but frankly I don't care enough to look up the case... you seem to care about these things, so I'm sure you know about it...

Edit: this question has been up 17 minutes... and you're already claiming victory with all of the stuff you asked for?

DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU ASKED FOR... it's not stuff that most people have on hand and it would certainly take most people more than 17 minutes to find it...

you clearly have no idea what you're talking about or asking for and, I would bet, wouldn't have a clue if someone did post something...

I know all the academics I know constantly insult others and use the word "owned"... you're clearly a genius

Answer 10

Isnt Liberal Democrat an oxymoron? If your a Democrat your obviously liberal. Its like saying socialist democrat or anti American democrat or communist democrat the name means the same thing.