 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| evocative names, bizrate.com, newsgeek, dmca, verses, branding consultants, record, mother sucks son, seattleweekly, weird, intellectual property, drm, | What I consider indisputable, though, is that he would require congressional approval to do so, and that would certainly entail legislation. Some say the law covering FISA already provides this capability. I'm prone to agree with them. "Congress has discussion no power to grant discussion or deny war powers to the President, discussion because he is granted those powers under Article II of the Constitution, and the Constitution supercedes all laws passed by Congress." I think you need to re-examine that assertion. Only Congress has the right to declare war. Once that's done, the president has constitutionally granted latitude to carry out the conflict as he sees fit, without requiring further advice or consent. But Congress has not declared war; they have granted him powers as defined within the legislation authorising the use of force against Iraq. The fact that Congress explicitly disallowed the prosecution of these powers on US soil is, in this case, integral. They did not grant him the power to operate unsupervised on US soil. |
Best Mature Paysites
|
| That may or may not mean a warrant -- the definition of "unreasonable" is up to the Courts, ultimately the Supreme Court." The intellectual property 'unreasonable' element puts limits on the kinds of search, but the 'probable cause' part makes it clear that searches and seizures require warrants that have stood up to the appropriate level of scrutiny, in this case the FISA intellectual property court. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not intellectual property be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. That's fairly unambiguous. Again, people will argue that the president needs the ability to conduct warrantless surveillance of US citizens in order to protect the nation. While I don't personally agree with that, I can see why people would argue for it. |
|
Looking for real sex? Find someone now on the
largest sex personals network.FREE signup! Post a FREE erotic ad w/5 photos, flirt in chatrooms, view explicit live Webcams, meet for REAL sex! 30,000 new photos every day! Find SEX now 
|
