People in Glass houses.......
 

I don't like US immirgation policy, especially with Mexico (if it were up to me we would have an open border), however, what business is it of the government of Mexico? What gives them the right to complain? It is up to the US to decide when where and how we let people into our country, is it not? This is really nothing for the Mexican country to weigh in about.

In addition, I don't get how they can be so self righteous when the reason these people are flooding across the border is because of the screwed up economic policy they have had in their country for the past one hundred and fifty years.

If they would manage their economy better these people would not have to leave their homes.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/20/D8EK9N0G6.html

The fact that the US citizen is placing a call to another US citizen does not make the privacy expectation "reasonable." The privacy expectation is only reasonable if there have been no circumstances involving the caller or recipient of the call that would support a successful tap request in the courts. If those circumstances exist, and a warrant is obtained, the speakers may have an expectation of privacy but the law still allows their privacy to be infringed upon. Just arguing semantics here. Which I normally don't do but I raise the issue because I've seen the rantings of defendants who were OUTRAGED that their privacy was infringed upon during the investigate process, as if they had the right to plan crimes without anyone daring to listen in.
I doubt they have their heads up their asses and know full well what the law is. It's the ability to make colorable claims that they acted in good faith that is the key. Since they already got what they wanted (tapping without a warrant, for as long as they could without being found it) I don't think they care if their justification sounds silly.

Punishing the Guilty
 

Say the Constitution says you can''t fish there, and say you take an oath (on a Bible) to uphold the Constitution. What then?

Punishing the Guilty
 

anyone who litigates, for real cases, don't even answer hypos. The constitution ain't involved, it's a statute. But maybe you can find a blog quote to explain otherwise.

And you know the Chin died today right? and you know this Southern/GGG sock has apparently died also?

At the risk of failing to STP, there are two distinct legal issues here: one is whether the program violated the Fourth Amendment rights of people whose calls were intercepted, and the other is whether the people running the program violated FISA, etc.

Punishing the Guilty
 

The Constitution is "involved," although the application of the Fourth Amendment here is less clear than the questions of statutory interpretation. If you want to understand more -- not necessary given your posting style, I'll concede -- I'd be happy to point you to a lengthy legal analysis by a law professor, former DOJ prosecutor and Kennedy clerk, and -- yes -- blogger.

I missed all that, alas.

Punishing the Guilty
 

I have a job and a family, so i admit i read less than some of you- but if the taps, absent warrents, would violate the 4th amendment, why is the statute necessary?

Punishing the Guilty
 

Because Congress can decide to keep the NSA out of domestic surveillance for reasons other than the concern that the NSA is violating Fourth Amendment rights.

Punishing the Guilty
 

here's my problem with this- if the actions that the act proscribes violate the Constitution anyway, the act was ill-advised. Statutes can be repealed a whole lot easier than the Constitution can be amended. Once the statute has been reversed, isn't the reversal support that the previously proscribed acts are not unconstitutional?

You say "concern" but ain't no "concern" here. If the acts are unconstitutional, then they were/are, and no statute is necessary.

Ty- you're arguing the Carter Dem congress fucked up by passing the act- it was over inclusive and sought to prevent things that were unconstitutional already- does your mom and Dad know you're attacking the late 70s Congress?

Punishing the Guilty
 

The constitutional argument is less clear than the statutory argument, and perhaps there's no reason to reach it. The fundamental problem here is that Bush sees himself as above the law, and has surrounded himself with people who affirm this.

Punishing the Guilty
 

According to my constitutional law pprofessor in law school, judges will, if possihle, generally attempt to resolve an issue as a matter of statutory interpretation rather than constituional interpretation if such is possible.

Perhaps a Venn diagram would help?

Punishing the Guilty
 

It's not clear to me how this gets in front of a court. I think it ends up as a political question. Or does Congress stop appropriating money for the program?

Punishing the Guilty
 

Ole "no borders" Jones? Seems to me your school owes you a refund from that class.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

• Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
  
  
  While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.
  ................ the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.
  ..................Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.
  
  Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.
  
  The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third................The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. ..............With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.
  
  ...................."By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government‑funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.8)."

Hank Chinaski

201-12

Their methodology makes very little sense to me, and the bit in there about Drudge being left of center -- because they basically ignored what he writes, paying more attention to other things he cites -- seems to reflect the problem.