The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power. The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable.
Let me see if I got this straight. A secret, basically military court decided it had the authority to overrule civil law and the Constitution.
Surprise! Maybe I should learn to like cold weather and emigrate to Canada- -assuming, of course, the US doesn't manufacture a pretext and invade it.
I don't remember the exact provisions of FISA, BUT the gov't can start its monitoring and it has something between 24 and 72 hours to get approval (a warrant for a wiretap) of the intercept by FISA. It doesn't need it in advance. It appears to me that that is quite sufficient power to grant the government. If it cannot get its own puppydog court to approve its action, then maybe it shouldn't be allowed to engage in whatever adventure it is embarked on.
However, in the case of law enforcement (organized criminal activities, then YES.. a warrant is required).
Suppose it's a Mafia case. And some of those Mafioso may have connections to the Sicilian Mafia. Do you still get to ignore the Constitution?
And were your position one of such legal clarity, this president would have been impeached last year.
By a Republican Congress? Gimme a break. |
