Quote from john dough:
Most "reasonable" voters can't balance their checkbook, much less understand a concept like inherent executive authority.
As far as the constitutional right to talk to a terrorist is concerned, constitutional "rights" are not impacted by the ruling. There is a statute, and it expresses certain requirements for a warrantless wiretap related to foreign surveillance, which the President has ignored.
So, the Constitutional issue is not over a right to privacy, but rather it is simply the question of whether or not the President must obey a lawful statute of the United States.
I say that he does. You may say that the President has "inherent authority" to ignore any statute passed by Congress that impairs the President's authority as commander in chief. This is the question that the Supreme Court must now answer: what is the scope of authority in this case? Is it boundless, regardless of the FISA or the AUMF, or is it constrained by those Acts of Congress.
It is well-established that a law, even if later found unconstitutional, must be obeyed until struck down. Under this framework, the President, without express authority under the AUMF to violate the FISA, is in violation of the Act, by wiretapping "United States Persons."
So, if you honor the law of the land, then the President should be indicted for the felony violation, and he can then challenge the law on a motion for declaratory relief, prior to trial.
But, of course, none of this can happen, because it is also well established that the President is immune from criminal or civil prosecution until after he is impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate.
What is left, then, is for some outside third party to find a judicial means of challenging the President's actions. As usual, the ACLU steps in to fill this niche and tries to find constitutional standing to sue. Judge Taylor found standing and found the President to have violated the law.
Now there will be an appeal and eventually the USSC will issue a decision. Whatever they rule will be the precedent.
NONE of the above, even remotely suggests that the Judge is a "nutcase," and when someone as apparently intelligent as you are, uses this sort of epithet against a sitting judge, you are showing your personal disrespect for for our nation's laws and legal process. You apparently enjoy having a leader who is equally contemptuous of our Constitution.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. But, neither is it something to wipe one's Presidential ass with.
