Well, I think it's just a matter of time before the shit hits the fan.

A few days have passed since the spying story hit the news. The big question is: What gives the President the authority to bypass the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment?

He says it's two things: 1) The Constitution. But where? I assume he means the authority vested in the President to conduct national security/foreign affairs. But I can't find anything in there that relaxes Fourth Amendment protocol. 2) The authorization to use force given to him by the Congress. Again, where in that legislation does he derive the right to violate the Constitution?

Several days later and this is all they can come up with?

It's not going to get any better for these people. Bush and his crowd are toast on this one. He broke the law. He violated his oath of office. Let the impeachment proceedings begin.

That is not going to happen unless the Democrats gain control of the House. Don't count on a Republican controlled House to initiate impeachment.

Democrats take the House.

And we will also need the power for the Fitz investigation to lead to impeachment.

So many possibilities here.

take over the House they won't bring impeachment hearings....they are spineless.

rules of engagement. If there is one thing the GOP has right it is that this is new territory. The pre-Cold War rules of engagement dealt with nation vs. nation, army vs. army. We have now have administrations who want to apply those rules of engagement (and stretch them to their limits) on a different type of conflict.

This is the "War in Iraq" but it isn't a "War against Iraq" (at least not in the general sense). And, just to make sure the government can live under mostly unlimited power, they've declared "War on Terrorism" and "War on Drugs" and so many others. The lax privacy protocols and so-forth extended to the government under the rules of war were never intended to be perpetual and unending. They were for times of national crisis only.

be used. I am amazed and appalled that most Americans don't understand the gravity of this.

1) the 4th amendment "amends" all the texts passed in the original constitution, meaning that even if Bush is correct (which he isn't, but lets for the moment assume so), then any power granted in the "executive power" section was subsequently constrained by the 4th Amendment.

2) No law passed by Congress, including a declaration of war, trumps the constitution.

3) The resolution passed by congress did not repeal, revise, or otherwise amend FISA.


In other words, they have no leg to stand on here.

Severly limits or even overrides the 4th amendment. I mean there's really no other explanation as to how Bush can get away with all this wire-tapping.

Well, it CAN, but it wouldn't (er, shouldn't) pass constitutional muster.

First, the very setup of our federal constitution is that there IS no "inherent authority". For the guys who say that they rely on the strict construction of the consitution to suddenly say there are powers of the president to jail people "inherent" in being the chief executive is nonsense. If Congress can't pass a law giving him the power, then he can't claim it.

Second, the "inherent" power is the power inherent in.....what? Being Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces during Wartime? Because being charged with the enforcment of laws doesn't give the power to ignore the law, or pick and choose, does it?

Third, the power includes disobeying statutes and treaties...secretly. We don't even know WHAT laws BUsh is breaking, because he claims the right to do it and NEVER TELL ANYBODY. That's what was revealed in the torture memos.

Thanks in large part to Kerry's little "joke" last week. I believe the wheels are in motion, and there's no stopping it now.

First, the very setup of our federal constitution is that there IS no "inherent authority". For the guys who say that they rely on the strict construction of the consitution to suddenly say there are powers of the president to jail people "inherent" in being the chief executive is nonsense. If Congress can't pass a law giving him the power, then he can't claim it.

Second, the "inherent" power is the power inherent in.....what? Being Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces during Wartime? Because being charged with the enforcment of laws doesn't give the power to ignore the law, or pick and choose, does it?

Third, the power includes disobeying statutes and treaties...secretly. We don't even know WHAT laws BUsh is breaking, because he claims the right to do it and NEVER TELL ANYBODY. That's what was revealed in the torture memos.

So Tucker Carlson's question is, gee, why doesn't Congress pass a law saying what the president can't do? And I say, what, ANOTHER one? Saying, "this time, we really mean it"? Why, if Bush has already said he doesn't have to obey and won't?

With a president unwilling to be bound by the law, impeachment is the only option.

See anybody in the streets?

Turn on your television.

Hear anybody seriously reporting what has happened?

Talk to your "friends."

Do they look at you funny when you try to tell them what is going on?

We're wasting time even posting on the internet.

It is already over.

Now all we can do is see where it leads.

ballgame would be over

I'm hanging on by a thread telling myself- It's Xmas people are thinking of other things

But I sense we are in the 9th inning 2 outs and the other team is winning and the umpire has been bought by the bad guys