Letters to the Editor
jdmf
Published Letters: 96 Editor's Choice: 11
-
I don't mean to second guess Glenn, but..
[Read the article: Keith Olbermann's reply and Obama's secret plan to protect the rule of law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It strikes me that the entire problem with getting a court to rule on the constitutionality of the FISA bill will be difficult, if not impossible.
Before the court could rule on the substantive constitutionality of the bill, the court would have to rule that it did not have to abide by the provision forcing it to dismiss the suit based on the AG's certification.
Congress has broad power to regulate the jurisdiction of the federal courts. It is a closer question whether Congress can regulate the jurisdiction of state courts to hear federal questions, but the answer is probably that Congress can. That leaves the question of whether Congress can remove jurisdiction entirely to hear a federal question. That legal question is as yet unanswered.
So, in practical terms, if the Administration does not want the constitutionality of the FISA bill adjudicated, it probably won't be.
-
Glenn I am proud to stand with you against this abomination.
[Read the article: Today's coverup of surveillance crimes and Barack Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My disappointment with the Democrats is only exceeded by my revulsion for the Republicans. I am going to do just enough (unenthusiastically) to see that Barack Obama is elected, because the consequences of a McCain presidency would be far worse.
But that's about as much enthusiasm as I can muster for someone who is as willing to compromise core legal principles that I know, as a lawyer, that he understands.
-
@ Brooklyn Todd
[Read the article: Today's coverup of surveillance crimes and Barack Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Please look at Salon's article on suing Bush today. It gives a very good description of some of the legal obstacles that would face a suit alleging that the FISA bill is unconstitutional on its face.
Quite simply, other than the plaintiffs in al-Hamarain, no one can show the requisite standing to challenge the FISA law. That is -- can show that he or she has been spied upon in a way that violates the constitution yet is allowed under the FISA bill.
Standing is a pre-requisite to maintaining a suit. Now it may be that the FISA bill violates the 4th Amendment in purporting to legalize unconstitutional searches. If you don't have standing -- that is, you can't show you were spied on -- you don't get your day in court.
Then there is the question of "reasonability". The 4th Amendment doesn't outlaw surveillance without a warrant, it outlaws unreasonable searches.
Courts defer greatly to Congress when it, through legislation, decides that a certain way of conducting a search is "reasonable".
It may be that a court would find the FISA bill unreasonable on its face. But I wouldn't count on it with today's federal judges.
-
Duh...
[Read the article: 87 percent of Fox News viewers plan to vote McCain]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Really? Who knew?
-
Um. No. The Dem's already picked a woman for VEEP...
[Read the article: Should Obama have picked Hillary?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ferraro, remember? So the "history making" choice was made more than a decade ago -- and made by a Dem. Just because McCain is so old and sick that a completely unqualified right-wing, creationist (Dinosaurs and humans lived together in the Garden of Eden), power-abusing nut-job may be a heartbeat away from the Presidency is, I'll bet, more likely to turn off moderate voters, than turn them on.
-
@ Anotherview, Libertariana (aka sock-puppet trolls)
[Read the article: Should Obama have picked Hillary?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I see you have no other letters on Salon at all... Hmmm...
looks like you're just sock-puppets trolling to spin for McCain. How much is Rove paying you to put your "opinions" out here? Hmmmmm?