...more recent posts
Friday, May 19, 2006
Constitutional Moment
This isn't just the forth amendment. It's about the relationship between the branches. This is an issue of the magnitude of Marbury v. Madison. And the wrong side's gonna win this round.
After 203 years, the executive branch is declaring it's independence from judicial review. The executive fiat that was quashed in US v. Nixon is raising it's ugly head.
* "The President wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment." — James D. St. Clair, Richard Nixon's counsel, arguing before the Supreme Court
* "Neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisors calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises."—Chief Justice Warren Burger
* "Neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisors calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises."—Chief Justice Warren Burger
This is a pending post to DKos ...
Mrs. O'Haver's Fifth Grade Class v. General Hayden.
Contrast the simple truth of these statements with the now famous compound bullshit from Hayden.
by Bianca
The fourth amendment means the law can't come in and search your properties or arrest you for any reason, unless they have a warrant. You can only get a warrant on someone when you have proof or evidence that they may have done something wrong.
My stamp shows a police officer with a warrant to come search a house or the seen of a crime to gather evidence to get proof and suspects.
The fourth amendment means the law can't come in and search your properties or arrest you for any reason, unless they have a warrant. You can only get a warrant on someone when you have proof or evidence that they may have done something wrong.
My stamp shows a police officer with a warrant to come search a house or the seen of a crime to gather evidence to get proof and suspects.
by Shelly
This Amendment means that no police officer may come in your house without a warrant. ... The police has to have a warrant to search your house. If the police officer has no warrant, that means they can't come in as they please. There are only two ways they may come in, (1) with an warrant, (2) if they have permission from the person in the house. ...
My stamp shows a lady telling a man, " You have no warrant, therefor you may not come in!" This stamp is 32 cents. My stamp has U.S.A. on it because it is from U.S.A.
The text and images are from a fifth grade class project on the Bill of Rights. The quotes are from 1996, so these web pioneers are now of voting age. Hope spring eternal.This Amendment means that no police officer may come in your house without a warrant. ... The police has to have a warrant to search your house. If the police officer has no warrant, that means they can't come in as they please. There are only two ways they may come in, (1) with an warrant, (2) if they have permission from the person in the house. ...
My stamp shows a lady telling a man, " You have no warrant, therefor you may not come in!" This stamp is 32 cents. My stamp has U.S.A. on it because it is from U.S.A.
Contrast the simple truth of these statements with the now famous compound bullshit from Hayden.
GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But the --
GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.
QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.
GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But does it not say probable --
GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --
QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --
GEN. HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. You used the terms just a few minutes ago, "We reasonably believe." And a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say "we reasonably believe"; you have to go to the FISA court, or the attorney general has to go to the FISA court and say, "we have probable cause."
And so what many people believe -- and I'd like you to respond to this -- is that what you've actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of "reasonably believe" in place of probable cause because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief, you have to show probable cause. Could you respond to that, please?
GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order.
Just to be very clear -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one -- what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." And we believe -- I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable.
QUESTION: But the --
GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.
QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.
GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But does it not say probable --
GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --
QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --
GEN. HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. You used the terms just a few minutes ago, "We reasonably believe." And a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say "we reasonably believe"; you have to go to the FISA court, or the attorney general has to go to the FISA court and say, "we have probable cause."
And so what many people believe -- and I'd like you to respond to this -- is that what you've actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of "reasonably believe" in place of probable cause because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief, you have to show probable cause. Could you respond to that, please?
GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order.
Just to be very clear -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one -- what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." And we believe -- I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable.
Classy Spam
Mixed up in the spam for "luxury" watches, stock tips, drugs, off-shore IT services, webinars and such I've been getting spam for private jet travel. This company has been sending me notices for "empty segments" that are being sold off at discount prices. E.g. SFO to Honolulu for $5k on a Lear jet.
Okay. Maybe. After Cisco buys me out of 5 kajillion dollars. And can you drop me on the big island?
Then again, it may be someone trying to build a better spam list by suckering me into replying.