General Discussion

Hydra

(14,459 posts)

42. Huh?

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 12:55 PM

Jun 2013

We don't have the ruling yet- for all we know, they were ruling on a policy put in place for years, with hundreds of thousands of violations like during the Bush admin.

Your assertion is on par with "Well, they were only found guilty of murder once(so far), so what's the big problem?"

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

101 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

2 law professors: Obama "has seemingly forgotten the constitutional law he once taught." [View all] adric mutelovic Jun 2013 OP

K & R !!! WillyT Jun 2013 #1

And yet every relevant Federal Appeals court decision disagrees with them. nt stevenleser Jun 2013 #2

So you are saying that which the courts uphold is always good and correct? Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #3

Nope, my short statement is exactly what it is. Not enough room there for your straw man. nt stevenleser Jun 2013 #9

which appeals judge said the programs were constitutional? adric mutelovic Jun 2013 #10

Start with 1984 US v Duggan stevenleser Jun 2013 #12

so foreign, not everyone and their mom? adric mutelovic Jun 2013 #15

Did you read it and the other cases and situations it cites? Or did you decide it was irrelevant out stevenleser Jun 2013 #16

Are you defending the spying or just Pres Obama? nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #90

We are all foreigners now... zeemike Jun 2013 #55

Key word being FOREIGN. And that ruling was 30 years ago. nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #89

which cases are those? adric mutelovic Jun 2013 #5

Start with 1984 US v Duggan stevenleser Jun 2013 #11

Id rather start with a ruling justifying collecting everyone's metadata adric mutelovic Jun 2013 #17

Duggan does that and more and provides more cases that back it up. All you have to do is read. stevenleser Jun 2013 #22

No. Duggan doesn't do that adric mutelovic Jun 2013 #39

It absolutely lays out the power of the President and executive branch with regards to foreign stevenleser Jun 2013 #45

Duggan concerned the admissibility of evidence in a court in a case JDPriestly Jun 2013 #58

Yep yep. These are not necessarily good laws, but the court rulings say it's okay. BenzoDia Jun 2013 #6

I don't believe that n/t Enrique Jun 2013 #7

The caselaw doesnt care that you dispute its existence. nt stevenleser Jun 2013 #20

But any reader that takes your word when you can not cite this 'plethora' of examples Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #28

I have always happily provided the cases for people to check. How many would you like? stevenleser Jun 2013 #33

There's just one problem with that Hydra Jun 2013 #8

You mean one out of several thousand requests right? Have you compared that to the average stevenleser Jun 2013 #36

Huh? Hydra Jun 2013 #42

And they've never been wrong. progressoid Jun 2013 #13

Which you could say about anything. That is not an argument. nt stevenleser Jun 2013 #14

Exactly. It's a meaningful as yours. progressoid Jun 2013 #19

No, it's not. There is a plethora of caselaw behind my opinion. nt stevenleser Jun 2013 #21

But you are assuming that your "plethora" is right. progressoid Jun 2013 #23

Again, you can say that about anything. That is not an argument. nt stevenleser Jun 2013 #25

I see your hyperbolic claims got wide mockery from the DU community as they should have Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #27

You would like to think so wouldn't you? No one has been able to dispute a single contention. stevenleser Jun 2013 #32

Debating these self-described "Constitutional experts" here... ConservativeDemocrat Jun 2013 #60

So tell us who is on "your side" besides Clapper, Mueller, the Republican Party, and the Corp-Media? rhett o rick Jun 2013 #93

+1 woo me with science Jun 2013 #35

jeez do you not understand? arely staircase Jun 2013 #64

Nor is saying that legal precedent is a valid defense. progressoid Jun 2013 #37

You should reread your title a few more times and see if it still makes sense to you. stevenleser Jun 2013 #38

Which title? progressoid Jun 2013 #41

This post has nothing to do with what's being talked about here, I just want to say I love your a kennedy Jun 2013 #71

Please provide evidence. nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #88

The warrant revealed by the Guardian clearly violates both the Constitution and also rhett o rick Jun 2013 #91

Ever since Kennedy, no President has even questioned the Military Industrial Complex Taverner Jun 2013 #4

You're seriously suggesting Kennedy was assassinated by the U.S. military?!? ConservativeDemocrat Jun 2013 #61

I am not. I am saying they tried to take credit for it. Taverner Jun 2013 #66

So who do you theorize assassinated Pres Kennedy after all the evidence out there today? nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #92

The President inherited the law-breaking from the previous Administration... kentuck Jun 2013 #18

He, of course, didn't just inherit the law-breakers. He happily adopted them. AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2013 #26

Say what? "...Being the new kid in town, bike man Jun 2013 #29

Well, that durn 4th Amerndment is soooo tricky..and inconvenient. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #24

I find the quoting of bare amendments to be a facile tactic. For example, if I posted: msanthrope Jun 2013 #30

Soo...what part of the 4th do you disagree with/agree with? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #34

Again.... a better question would encompass some of the 200 years of msanthrope Jun 2013 #46

Do you agree with "200 years of jurisprudence" that gives the goverment the right to spy on its own Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #47

You aren't being specific enough for me to comment on. Be specific. Who, what, where? nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #48

How specific do I have to be? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #49

Define 'spying.' nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #51

Here Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #52

Define 'spying.' Not 'spy.'. Define the activities you think are 'spying.' nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #54

You're kidding. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #57

No, I'm not. Define what you think is 'spying.' A specific action. nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #59

How about peeking through someone's window without their knowledge? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #63

LEO's on lawful business can look through your windows. What they can do with what they see depends msanthrope Jun 2013 #65

You really aren't going to answer the question, are you? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #67

When you ask me a question with some specificity, I answer it. I just did. nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #68

Do you approve of the government spying on you? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #69

I have no evidence to think the government is doing anything impermissible to me. msanthrope Jun 2013 #72

Or, to anyone else? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #73

To whom? Again, if you've got specifics, let us know. nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #74

I would have to be OK with it if it were allowed under the law treestar Jun 2013 #83

And apparently, that is the meaning of the law to you treestar Jun 2013 #82

Exactly treestar Jun 2013 #79

I've decided that the perfect reply to that is the 2nd, or the 3rd amendment. nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #81

Lot's of a-hole lawyers trying to get their 15 minutes at Obama's expense flamingdem Jun 2013 #31

Haha Hydra Jun 2013 #43

Bingo. Scurrilous Jun 2013 #56

yes all the best lawyers are ok with the surveillance Enrique Jun 2013 #62

Both sides get a lawyer in a case - did you know that? treestar Jun 2013 #84

Obama got his fame at the expense of the Working Class and the Constitution FreakinDJ Jun 2013 #80

So who do you stand with? Clapper and Mueller? The Corp-Media? nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #94

Who would be better to circumvent the Constitution... FlyByNight Jun 2013 #40

They keep pushing it off as "metadata" Hydra Jun 2013 #44

A constitutional scholar would be able to argue either side of it treestar Jun 2013 #85

Like Bush, Obama got a note from his lawyer that says everything is Just Peachy Legal!!! bvar22 Jun 2013 #50

This is the best thing I've read so far on this subject marions ghost Jun 2013 #53

I don't think he paid much attention in some of his classes. The Link Jun 2013 #70

Everytime the familar face of law and Constitution is chipped at - blasting off an eyebrow here kenny blankenship Jun 2013 #75

When much of junior's handiwork has been ratified and continued, it shouldn't be surprising that the indepat Jun 2013 #76

Tell his Mama watch out - He'll sell her out too FreakinDJ Jun 2013 #77

These professors apparently never learned it treestar Jun 2013 #78

The argument that the President is helpless is contrary to the many posts here that give him credit. rhett o rick Jun 2013 #96

The President is helpless outside Article II treestar Jun 2013 #97

He can appoint another head of the security agencies if he thinks they are operating outside rhett o rick Jun 2013 #98

The whole complain is that this is within the law treestar Jun 2013 #99

The NSA is operating outside the law. Your continued denial wont make it right. The warrant that rhett o rick Jun 2013 #100

They didn't get their ponies Doctor_J Jun 2013 #86

The death of the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments under his watch underscore the sentiment. Fire Walk With Me Jun 2013 #87

Obama is a very intelligent man. NCTraveler Jun 2013 #95

Yes he is now siding with the Republicans on the Patriot Act and domestic spying. rhett o rick Jun 2013 #101