In 2004, Bush said the following (gathered from the White House website):

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

But, things change ...:

The president says without apology that he has, and has used, the legal power to order the National Security Agency to conduct electronic eavesdropping on people, including U.S. citizens, within the United States without prior court approval. He said Saturday during a live radio address that his orders to the NSA to eavesdrop domestically were "a vital tool in our war against the terrorists," "critical to saving American lives" and "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." The government has long had the power, through proper procedures, to conduct foreign surveillance in this fashion. What makes last week's revelations markedly different is that this power now has been used domestically, in some cases against U.S. citizens, without formal Congressional or judicial approval.

The president's legal position â.. that no law may forbid him from ordering domestic surveillance without a warrant â.. is not explicitly contained in the text of the Constitution, has never before been implied into it by the federal courts, and is nowhere to be found in Congress' most germane legislation on the topic. You might say, as one long ago Supreme Court justice might have put it, that the president's power to wage war in this fashion, without specific constitutional or statutory authority, stems from the discovery by government lawyers of "penumbral emanations" of such power in the Constitution itself. That doesn't mean the power does not somehow exist; it just means that no other branch of government, including the branch that has the job of interpreting the Constitution, has ever stated that it does.

CBS News | The Constitution Versus Itself


Related Entries
  • I'm Voting Tea Party

    Nuts to those Canadian socialists! I'm Voting Tea Party brand t-shirts by Jeremy Kalgreen...

  • Arizona's new law is racist. Here's why...

    Well, no big surprise here. YouTube - Rachel Maddow- Racist roots of Arizona law...

  • The non-suicides at Camp Delta

    Oh, you think? Horrific account of how inmates were tortured, killed, and their deaths faked to look like suicides -- suicides so fake that it's...

  • Another GOP Sex Scandal

    ... and it's very very juicy. California GOP Assemblyman Mike Duvall, vice chair of the Committee on Utilities & Commerce, has resigned from public office....

  • Obama's PDA

    President Barack Obama's got a new Blackberry smartphone. Product Details - Sectéra Edgeâ.¢ SME PED - Overview...


Leave a comment

Recent Entries

  • The Placebo Effect

    So, how's that homeopathy working for you? The Strange Powers of the Placebo Effect - YouTube...

  • Coffee and a Devil's Star

    Reading another Jo Nesbo book (is that 'Joe' or 'Yo'?) and grabbing a cup at Williams on Northfield. I'm all out of order on this...

  • 5 Reasons No One Is Guestposting At Your (My) Blog

    Image via WikipediaWell, obviously, I've not been looking for guest posters. But apparently, it's a thing you can do to get more content and more...

  • Gearing Up for the 2011 Zombie Invasion

    Image by aeviin via FlickrPut on your brains, the zombies are coming. Zombies make their appearances here and there all through the year, but you...

  • My Mai Tai

    A Trader Vic mai tai, straight from the book. Remember, the only fruit juice in a mai tai should be lime. Yes, well, there should...

Close