WIPE THE SPITTLE FROM YOUR MOUTH, FRIEND
We don't know whether President George W. Bush broke the law or not. What am I talking about? The news that came out on Friday that the President allows the US to spy on callers without using the courts to get approval. Lawmakers from both parties are calling for a congressional investigation on whether or not federal law was broken.
I said Friday on my show that I'm concerned that the President may have overstepped his limits, but I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE.
Why don't we wait and see what happens? Why don't we find out exactly what happened. Why don't we wait and find out exactly why the New York Times sat on this story for a year before releasing it. (I've heard word that the White House asked them to, but I haven't heard that directly from the NYT yet)
So, wipe the spittle from your mouth, liberals, and try not to use the "I" word until it's warranted.
I said Friday on my show that I'm concerned that the President may have overstepped his limits, but I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE.
Why don't we wait and see what happens? Why don't we find out exactly what happened. Why don't we wait and find out exactly why the New York Times sat on this story for a year before releasing it. (I've heard word that the White House asked them to, but I haven't heard that directly from the NYT yet)
So, wipe the spittle from your mouth, liberals, and try not to use the "I" word until it's warranted.
posted by Pamela Furr at
7:51 AM
7 Comments:
You believe in the Constitution as the law of the land right? There is a little matter of that pesky bill of rights, that guarantees to the American people that their privacies will not not be trampled upon by the government without just cause backed up by search warrants. Your president has kinda trampled that silly notion.
Are you comfortable with the government spying on you even if they do not have the legal right to do so?
Which of the 10 pieces of the Bill of Rights has been trampled here?
the preamble to begin with:
"in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"
Am. #1: "the abridgment of free speech..."
Am. #IV: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not 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. "
Am.#5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury"
Preamble - mild case against intent, prhaps, but 'misconstruction' and 'abuse' would be defined by established precedent. National security purposes are different than law enforcement (build a case, prove in court, send the convicted to jail for punishment)
1A - What speech has been 'abridged' by listening in? If anything, they want them to talk as much as possible. There are established 'abridgments' considered constitutional already. Theatre fire, libel, etc. Conspiracy planning is not protected speech, either.
4A- All with private property, not in public display. ie, not in plain sight thru a window. How may times have you been told email is not secure, anyone can read it? When were you ever told 'anyone but the NSA' can read your email?
5A- You're in cloud cuckoo land on this one. Noone has been 'held to answer' for crimes because the point is nat'l security and prevention, not prosecution. To the contrary, one could argue you're violating the President's 5th amendment rights here...
Well said, Miss Furr.
anon
Have you ever taken a Constitutional Law class at a university level? Have you ever passed a civics course? Perhaps you should really think about learning more about Constitutional Law...
Well Pamela the I think the time for waiting to see what happens is long over. We waited to see what happens when the Patriot Act was signed, we waited to see what would happen when the acusations of torture came out, we waited to see what would happen has people were held without being charged of a crime, so were do we draw the line. When they finally come out and say the Constitution of the United States has no meaning at all? I have a new post regarding this along with the rest of the power grab by Bush on my blog, I would love you opinion.
apatriotlegion.blogspot.com
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home