I support wiretapping, but not killing US citizens outside of due process
I opposed wiretapping when Bush did it and when Obama does it. Assassinations are even worse!
If you are an enemy of the US, citizenship doesn't matter. Kill em all
I opposed wiretapping when Bush did it, but it is ok now. So are assassinations.
Get informed: UNICEF foreign adoption policy is killing orphans and the US gives $132 million to UNICEF every year. Stop the madness.
For the best news and commentary on the 2012 election from the GOP perspective, visit www.whitehouse12.com.
Not at all. It just means that its unlikely that there would be a large outcry to significantly pursue legal action against the government individuals, but that doesn't mean its still not likely that some action could reach the court to deem their use of it as being unconstitutional making them unable to continue to do so without blatantly violating the law rather than simply acting unknowingly unconstitutionally.If we get enough popular support for rampant assassination, does it make it OK and proper for the government to do so?
Yep, and the Constitution lays it out. The Congress could impeach the President, the Supreme Court could deem the action unconstitutional putting a stop to any further legal use of it by the government.Is there oversight? Is there restriction?
I do too. I disagree with you that this particular case is unconstitutional, and I disagree with you that those that did something like this should be tried for treason, but I don't disagree with you about upholding the constitution. I'd FULLY support someone trying to bring a court case against the Obama Administration over this action even if I don't agree with their idea of what the ruling should be...because while my opinion is important to me, the courts opinion is the only one important to the Constitution. That's the system our government has set up to challenge these type of things and to uphold the constitution, and I fully support them taking that action.I believe that it is very important to uphold the Constitution and to have government functioning within its proper boundaries.
Am I wrong in understanding Lincoln did do this?it has not been.
Indeed, however an oath is not binding by law. However, violating it is grounds for impeachment.Politicians swear an oath to uphold the Constitution
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD
Really? You don't know anything at all about how those "warrantless" (they actually require an emergency warrant to be done prior to tap and a normal warrant to be used in court) wiretaps occured? You think the president just decides, unilaterally, that someone gets tapped. Do you know anything about the program that you so gleefully demonize. Only talking points? Wow.