--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 8/19/06 7:19:57 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Congress has set up a law requiring him to get a warrant > after-the-fact. Are you saying that, in the day and age of > instant communcations, the President doesn't have to follow > the law because Lincoln didn't? > > > > > No not at all. I'm saying if you read the law in question there > sure seems to be a lot of wiggle room and if you bring in > presidential war powers concerning national security that law may > be obsolete. Bush is testing the law to see how the courts will > rule.
No, he isn't. The administration fought tooth and nail to *keep* it from being adjudicated in the first place, and part of the case they eventually made to the judge was that it should not be heard at all because it concerned "state secrets." They also argued that the plaintiffs (the ACLU, among others) had no standing to sue. > Notice while the lower court said it violated the > constitution he doesn't have to stop because it is > on appeal. Notice that what *actually* happened was that Judge Taylor (who wrote the ruling) will rule September 7 on a request to allow warrantless wiretapping to continue during the appeal; the Justice Department and the plaintiffs *agreed* that it could continue until the judge ruled. > Supreme court will make the final decision. Assuming the appeals court decision is appealed, you mean. Actually, the Supreme Court will make the decision as to whether it wants to hear the case. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
