From: "Gary Britt" 

It is not ambiguous that the President has the authority to do this.  What
I'll concede has never been ruled on by any court is the creation of some
balancing test between the President's authority and citizen's 4th
amendment rights.  So if there are limits on this Presidential authority
(which there probably are I don't think its an absolute unlimited power
because very few are) there has never been a court case that attempts to
define those limits.

However, since those limits have never been defined, if any exist, the
President's action was certainly lawful up and until the time the Supreme
Court defines any applicable limits, if any.

I have to tell you that I don't see it as even a close call that the
Supreme Court will NOT come up with a definition that prevents what the
President has been doing.  They will define this activity as within his
constitutional powers.

Gary

"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:43a6ce7a$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> The stories I've seen so far seem to say that both sides are partially
> correct in their claims. There was a constitutional lawyer on NBC ( forgot
> the name ) that said the claimed war powers are ambiguous.
>
> There is something about being President that makes one susceptible to the
> claiming of extraordinary powers. This will eventually be resolved and (
> whether I agree to the outcome or not ) I think debate on this is good and
> that any resolution should eliminate the ambiguity for or against.
>
>
>
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:43a6cbca$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > The problem Rich is nothing below cites the existing cases that do say
the
> > President has inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless
> > surveillance inside and outside the country.  All they do is cite a case
> > that says the President's war time powers aren't unlimited.  Well duh,
now
> > could that scholarly professor actually say something we don't already
> > know.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
> > news:43a6a83b{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> ''A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes
to
> > the
> >> rights of the nation's citizens,"   Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/12/19/past_rulings_d
ont_support_bushs_use_of_war_powers/
> >>
> >> WASHINGTON -- President Bush's assertion that his powers as commander
in
> >> chief allowed him to authorize wiretaps on Americans despite a 1978
> >> wiretapping law has little support in past Supreme Court rulings.
> >>
> >> Congress enacted the law requiring investigators to seek judicial
> >> warrants
> >> before wiretapping citizens in response to revelations that former
> > President
> >> Richard Nixon had used the FBI to spy on his political enemies.
> >>
> >> Bush and his defenders have countered that the law does not apply to
him.
> >>
> >> Under the Constitution, they say, the president has the power to take
> >> necessary actions to protect national security.
> >>
> >> ''The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September
> > the
> >> 11th . . . is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities
> >> and
> >> authorities," Bush said in his weekly radio address on Saturday.
> >>
> >> But past Supreme Court rulings have taken a more limited view of
> >> presidential power in wartime.
> >>
> >> ''The president is taking an unusually expansive view of what the
> >> Constitution allows him to do in disregard of Congress, and he is
> >> probably
> >> wrong," said Susan Low Bloch, a professor of constitutional law at
> >> Georgetown University. ''His claim of power is too extreme."
> >>
> >> The court laid out the limits of presidential power during wartime in a
> > 1952
> >> case stemming from former President Harry Truman's decision to seize a
> > steel
> >> mill in order to avert a strike at the plant.
> >>
> >> Fearing that a shortage of steel would hamper the Korean War effort,
> > Truman
> >> decided to stop the strike. Although Congress had empowered him to keep
> > the
> >> mill running by imposing a ''cooling off" period in
labor negotiations,
> >> Truman chose to take more drastic action. Truman declared that the
> >> government would take control of the mill to ensure a steady supply of
> >> steel. But the court rejected Truman's claim that his powers as
commander
> > in
> >> chief allowed him to go beyond the will of Congress.
> >>
> >> ''When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or
> >> implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb," wrote
Justice
> >> Robert Jackson in a much-cited concurring opinion.
> >>
> >> In his address Saturday, Bush sought to justify his actions in part by
> >> noting that Congress had authorized him to use force against Al Qaeda
> > after
> >> the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
> >>
> >> ''To fight the war on terror, I am using authority vested in me by
> > Congress,
> >> including the Joint Authorization for Use of Military Force, which
passed
> >> overwhelmingly in the first week after September the
11th," Bush said.
> > ''I'm
> >> also using constitutional authority vested in me as commander in
chief."
> >>
> >> Still, the court has already decided that Bush's powers as commander in
> >> chief do not supersede other legal protections.
> >>
> >> In a 2004 case, Bush cited both his authority as commander in chief and
> > the
> >> congressional authorization to support his claim that US citizens could
> >> be
> >> imprisoned without a trial if they were suspected to be part of a
> > terrorist
> >> network. But the court rejected Bush's assertion, ruling that the
> > detainees
> >> were entitled to a fair hearing.
> >>
> >> ''A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes
to
> > the
> >> rights of the nation's citizens," wrote Justice Sandra
Day O'Connor
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

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