Attorney general says Bush given authority for domestic spying
Responding to a congressional uproar, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Monday that Congress had essentially given President George W. Bush the authority for domestic surveillance after the Sept. 11 attacks.
So, in the President's mind he had Congressional Authority to Spy on US citizens. The question in my mind becomes, when did Congressional authority or Executive Orders ever trump the Constitution?
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The way the Supreme Court has decided to protect citizens from unreasonable search is by a search warrant. So, we have a Constitutional right as citizens to be secure from searches without a warrant. President Bush has said he has violated this provision of the Constitution and will continue to do it.
THE PRESIDENT IS WRONG. He has no standing to violate the Constitution.
The question now becomes does this rise to the level of impeachment.
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
If President Clinton's offense rose to a level of impeachment, this probably rises to the level of impeachment too.
One thing you have to give President Bush on this. He is standing up for his convictions. He says, I did this and will continue to do this because it's right thing to do. A large chunk of people disagree with his assessment but he is sticking to his guns. No lying or hiding. He fessed up and is staking his piece of ground. The piece of ground might sink under the weight of Congressional and public opinion, but he's standing proudly on him. I have to admire that, even if he's wrong.
When people ask if the United States can afford to place on trial the president, if the system can stand impeachment, my answer is, "Can we stand anything else?" George McGovern
Consent searches happen when a federal official (usually a cop) asks you if he/she can look in your backpack/pockets/trunk/house. When you say "Yes," you have just consented to be searched, i.e., you've communicated that such a search does not violate your right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. Your average person will always say "Yes" because cops are intimidating and no one thinks they really have the right to say "No," even though they DO. The fact is, however, that the only people who generally know their rights are lawyers and criminals, so saying "No" is going to bring even more suspicion down on the person who is merely enforcing his or her rights. (The irony is that if the officer gets consent and then finds contraband, he or she thinks the consenting person is a complete and total idiot for having given consent.)
Anyway, perhaps in a feat of contorted logic, President Bush has concluded that we, the electorate, have consented to be searched whenever his government deems it necessary, because we consented to our elected representatives, and they approved the Patriot Act. So much for Democracy! I think it's been a long time since we actually lived in one.