From: "Gary Britt" 

Pretty much I agreed.  I might have some slight shades of differences on
Keith.  Not much though.

It may turn on what you say, but I think "the Dog" at
www.junkyardlawdogs.com has got the correct take on this.

Gary

"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:43b4d71b$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> That was an interesting article. Did you agree with the following point in
> it?
>
> 'The Supreme Court in the 1972 "Keith case" held that a warrant was
required
> for national security wiretaps involving purely domestic targets, but
> expressly distinguished the case from one involving wiretapping "foreign
> powers" or their agents in this country. '
>
>  Then there is the 15 day period for warrantless searches after war is
first
> declared (Section 1811 of the FISA statute).
>
> The debate will be on the scope of special powers in periods of conflict
or
> degrees of conflict
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:43b4b3dd{at}w3.nls.net...
> >I always knew this, but thought maybe now you would believe it.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007734
> >
> > For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a
single
> > dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a
> > formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v.
Tingy),
> > and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally
> > authorize
> > war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and
> > in
> > the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of
war.
> > Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the
> > power
> > of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty
in
> > 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state
> > was
> > initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful.
> >
> >
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5