Liberal poliitcal commentary with a commitment to truth and honesty.
In a little-remembered debate from 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has "inherent authority" to order physical searches -- including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens -- for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body. Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own.
So was Bill Drunk, stoned or just plain stupid so how was Clintons position any different than Bush's.
Now, let's go back, though. Let's go back -- July 14th, 1994, Jamie Gorelick quoted by Byron York in a story today at National Review Online. She said -- and this is her testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14th of 1994. She said -- Jamie Gorelick -- "The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes, and that the president may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the attorney general. It's important to understand, senators, that the rules and the methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."So Jamie Gorelick here is basically saying, "We have a different set of rules when a Democrat's in the White House. When a Democrat's in the White House, we can do exactly what George W. Bush did, because Bill Clinton did it. But when George W. Bush is in office, we can't let George W. Bush do it, because he's a Republican," or whatever reason. So here's Gorelick today in The Washington Post, the issue here is this -- if you're McCain, and you just got Congress to pass your big limits on interrogation techniques bill, what would you think it matters when Bush is gonna run roughshod over the law anyway and do what he wants to do?Why, then, she's quoted, 11 years ago, basically, saying, "Hey, presidents have this authority, and they've used it, and they've done it before. Foreign intelligence is far different than domestic criminal searches." So I mean, it is -- it is just -- these people lie through their teeth. Jamie Gorelick, the audacity for her to step forward and have some sort of authority on this is typical of the mainstream press. But she has just contradicted herself big time inside of 11 years, and it illustrates the entirety of the political aspects of this whole thing.
Just finished watching the news and a lot of legal scholars are saying this Judge's ruling is nothing more than a a liberal opinion without any viladity, I guess what they are saying is it will not hold water....before I jump up and down we will wait and see what the appeal brings....and we all know if and when a lawyer wants a ruling in his/her favor they will pick the district they figure they have the best chance in getting they ruling they wish.
The United States Constitution has become a "liberal" document, huh? That's rich, Rocky. That judge based her ruling on the Constitution, not on some theoretical "liberal" agenda that you seem to think exists.If you don't want to claim the Constitution for your own, I'll gladly and proudly claim it for the liberal side (even though I'm an independent). I am convinced they are the only "side" that is willing to protect it any longer, although I give full credit to the ultra-conservative John Birch Society for realizing that Bush as a major threat to it also.Whether you are simply being sarcastic for the fun of it, or not, you really need to grow up and take a course on the Constitution.
Mike you tell me where I said that I did not claim the constution Get a grip boy, I'm going to type this real slow so you can read it, what I did state was legal scholars had made a statement that it was nothing more than a Liberal opinion.I did not state if these scholars were liberal or consertative, and also I would not jump up and down but wait to see what the appeal courts bring.Let me say this any judge consertative or liberal can say their ruling was based on the constution that does not mean it was correct or the right ruling the only thing it means is they see it was being the correct ruling based on the constution and to how they interpet it. Again as we well know both Liberal and Consertative Judges have made ruling based on the constution to be overturned it the appeals process because they had not a clue as to what they were talking about, and a good example of what I am saying is the 9th circuit court with appox. 75% of their rulings being over-turned in the appeal process.