Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: He doesn't have to abide that law when given the power to execute a war by statute.  Do you simply ignore that argument or do you have anything to suggest that it is wrong?   Then how come various members of Congress don't agree with the way he interprets the law? Yeah and how come the SCOTUS doesn't decide all cases 9-0 either?   That would make a better argument if it was only Democrats expressing reservations about this. Well, wouldn't it be better to fill out a little paperwork than deal with this shitstorm?

Not if that little bit of paperwork violates the Constitution by creating intrusive oversight of CiC's authority to conduct foreign intelligence gathering in a time of war - as so many federal appellate court decisions have underscored wrt warrantless gathering of foreign intelligence.

Quoted: What is he trying to hide, anyway?

Isn't that what cops say to people when they complain about LEOs using drug-sniffing dogs around their cars at routine traffic stops?

Quoted: Not if that little bit of paperwork violates the Constitution by creating intrusive oversight of CiC's authority to conduct foreign intelligence gathering in a time of war - as so many federal appellate court decisions have underscored wrt warrantless gathering of foreign intelligence.

Well, that's not clear at all that it would, so that's a moot point. But, regardless, the paperwork would still be better than this shitstorm.

Quoted: What is he trying to hide, anyway? Isn't that what cops say to people when they complain about LEOs using drug-sniffing dogs around their car at routine traffic stops?

Yep. You have some problem about their own question being asked of them?

Quoted: Quoted: Not if that little bit of paperwork violates the Constitution by creating intrusive oversight of CiC's authority to conduct foreign intelligence gathering in a time of war - as so many federal appellate court decisions have underscored wrt warrantless gathering of foreign intelligence. Well, that's not clear at all that it would, so that's a moot point. But, regardless, the paperwork would still be better than this shitstorm.

Maybe, maybe not. This "shitstorm" is simply media hype and political mudslinging. Do you really think people like Kennedy, Pelosi, McCain or Biden really care about the Constitution or catching real terrorists at home and abroad - or are they more interested in posturing for an upcoming election season?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What is he trying to hide, anyway? Isn't that what cops say to people when they complain about LEOs using drug-sniffing dogs around their car at routine traffic stops? Yep. You have some problem about their own question being asked of them?

Nope. I'm just pointing our your hypocrisy.

If someone believes something is an unconstitutional infringment and they resist it on that principle - that doesn't mean one is "hiding" anything - whether it's you or the President.

So don't ask "what's he trying to hide" unless you also think it's a legitimate question to be asked of you at the next traffic stop when you refuse a "looksie" in your trunk.

Quoted: Maybe, maybe not. This "shitstorm" is simply media hype and political mudslinging. Do you really think people like Kennedy, Pelosi, McCain or Biden really care about the Constitution or catching real terrorists at home and abroad - or are they more interested in posturing for an upcoming election season?

I think any moron who sets himself up for that kind of fight when he could have prevented it by putting a few clerks to work is pretty stupid.

Nope. I'm just pointing our your hypocrisy.

It isn't hypocrisy to ask someone a question they ask themselves. It is hypocrisy if they don't answer it.

If someone believes something is an unconstitutional infringment and they resist it on that principle - that doesn't mean one is "hiding" anything - whether it's you or the President. So don't ask "what's he trying to hide" unless you also think it's a legitimate question to be asked of you at the next traffic stop when you refuse a "looksie" in your trunk.

Well, as the Bush law enforcement folks say themselves, if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you shouldn't have any problem showing everything you got. So what's the problem?

Or does this question only count when they ask it?

Quoted: Quoted: Maybe, maybe not. This "shitstorm" is simply media hype and political mudslinging. Do you really think people like Kennedy, Pelosi, McCain or Biden really care about the Constitution or catching real terrorists at home and abroad - or are they more interested in posturing for an upcoming election season? I think any moron who sets himself up for that kind of fight when he could have prevented it by putting a few clerks to work is pretty stupid.

"All ya' gotta do is just open the trunk and let us have a quick looksie and then you can be on your way, nobody gets hurt."

Right?

Quoted: If someone believes something is an unconstitutional infringment and they resist it on that principle - that doesn't mean one is "hiding" anything - whether it's you or the President. So don't ask "what's he trying to hide" unless you also think it's a legitimate question to be asked of you at the next traffic stop when you refuse a "looksie" in your trunk. Well, as the Bush law enforcement folks say themselves, if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you shouldn't have any problem showing everything you got. So what's the problem? Or does this question only count when they ask it?

"showing everything you got"? I've never heard the Bush law enforcement folks ask anyone that.

What are you referring to?

Read 'em & weep.

In 2002, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review decided Sealed Case No. 02-001. This case arose out of a provision of the Patriot Act that was intended to break down the “wall” between law enforcement and intelligence gathering. The Patriot Act modified Truong’s “primary purpose” test by providing that surveillance under FISA was proper if intelligence gathering was one “significant” purpose of the intercept. In the course of discussing the constitutional underpinnings (or lack thereof) of the Truong test, the court wrote: The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power. The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable.

I'm guessing that the Democrats' lawyers have told them the same thing, which explains why they're flapping their jaws rather than doing anything to stop the "outrage."