Boehner to sue Obama! (1 Viewer)

[SmoovySmoov]

Is it possible for a regular American citizen to sue Boehner for ACTUALLY neglecting the duties of his office? LawyerGuys? If so, I'm all over it.

 

[NCCommish]

Obama has proposed significant reforms to the NSA wiretapping program. I'd love the administration to go farther, but his reforms send more requests to the FISA court, put a public advocate in the proceedings (instead of handling it like a Grand Jury), reduces the amount of data collected based on one "suspicious person", and takes storage of metadata out of the government's hands.

Conservatives who are suddenly concerned about this stuff under the Obama administration are the worst type of opportunistic hacks (we'll spare the few libertarians who actually spoke up about it 10 years ago).

Which raises the question why is the President setting the rules ad hoc (only once discovered by virtue of leaks btw) and not Congress or the Constitution? The 4th Amendment doesn't allow such seizures, period, and the 3rd Amendment says the government can't intrude our privacy. The 1st Amendment says we have a right to free speech. That should all be enough.

You have a habit of sounding like an idiot when you talk about the Constitution. Which is to be expected, because you rely on press reports from ideologues to tell you what it means. Just for starters, the 3rd Amendment prohibits one very specific thing. Which is the government requiring private citizens to quarter troops. It most certainly does not say anything like "the government can't intrude our privacy.."

The Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures" in the absence of "probable cause." Reasonable people can disagree over whether the collection of metadata, for instance, is an unreasonable search and seizure or whether the FISA court process (established, by Congress, in 1978) ensures probable cause. But as the chief executive, the President is absolutely entitled to propose, and to even implement in the absence of a contrary law passed by Congress) reforms aimed at achieving those goals.

The Third Amendment was one of the amendments cited in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) as evidence that the Constitution protects an implicit right to privacy.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Obama has proposed significant reforms to the NSA wiretapping program. I'd love the administration to go farther, but his reforms send more requests to the FISA court, put a public advocate in the proceedings (instead of handling it like a Grand Jury), reduces the amount of data collected based on one "suspicious person", and takes storage of metadata out of the government's hands.

Conservatives who are suddenly concerned about this stuff under the Obama administration are the worst type of opportunistic hacks (we'll spare the few libertarians who actually spoke up about it 10 years ago).

Which raises the question why is the President setting the rules ad hoc (only once discovered by virtue of leaks btw) and not Congress or the Constitution? The 4th Amendment doesn't allow such seizures, period, and the 3rd Amendment says the government can't intrude our privacy. The 1st Amendment says we have a right to free speech. That should all be enough.

You have a habit of sounding like an idiot when you talk about the Constitution. Which is to be expected, because you rely on press reports from ideologues to tell you what it means. Just for starters, the 3rd Amendment prohibits one very specific thing. Which is the government requiring private citizens to quarter troops. It most certainly does not say anything like "the government can't intrude our privacy.."

The Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures" in the absence of "probable cause." Reasonable people can disagree over whether the collection of metadata, for instance, is an unreasonable search and seizure or whether the FISA court process (established, by Congress, in 1978) ensures probable cause. But as the chief executive, the President is absolutely entitled to propose, and to even implement in the absence of a contrary law passed by Congress) reforms aimed at achieving those goals.

You mean the Warren court? The 3rd Amendment says they can't quarter troops in people's homes. It's been taken as an expression that the government has no right to come into our homes, period, except under warrant, which is why the 4th Amendment follows right after that. If you would like a reference for this, take a look at Roe vs Wade Griswold, which includes the 3rd Amendment within its penumbra of rights upon which the right to privacy is based.

As for your statement on the 4th Amendment, I still find it shocking in this day and age to hear this kind of thing. To me, if I found a postman rifling through my mail or daily taking notes outside my door as to who was sending me mail, or who I was mailing, and not only that who was coming and going (which to me is essentially the same) it would be no different. To me, assuming there's no indicia of criminal activity, that's an unreasonable search without probable cause, how about you?

I have no idea if you're a liberal or not, but to me these are great liberal principles that our country stands on.

 

[jon_mx]

I did not know you could sue non-citizens.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Obama has proposed significant reforms to the NSA wiretapping program. I'd love the administration to go farther, but his reforms send more requests to the FISA court, put a public advocate in the proceedings (instead of handling it like a Grand Jury), reduces the amount of data collected based on one "suspicious person", and takes storage of metadata out of the government's hands.

Conservatives who are suddenly concerned about this stuff under the Obama administration are the worst type of opportunistic hacks (we'll spare the few libertarians who actually spoke up about it 10 years ago).

Which raises the question why is the President setting the rules ad hoc (only once discovered by virtue of leaks btw) and not Congress or the Constitution? The 4th Amendment doesn't allow such seizures, period, and the 3rd Amendment says the government can't intrude our privacy. The 1st Amendment says we have a right to free speech. That should all be enough.

You have a habit of sounding like an idiot when you talk about the Constitution. Which is to be expected, because you rely on press reports from ideologues to tell you what it means. Just for starters, the 3rd Amendment prohibits one very specific thing. Which is the government requiring private citizens to quarter troops. It most certainly does not say anything like "the government can't intrude our privacy.."

The Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures" in the absence of "probable cause." Reasonable people can disagree over whether the collection of metadata, for instance, is an unreasonable search and seizure or whether the FISA court process (established, by Congress, in 1978) ensures probable cause. But as the chief executive, the President is absolutely entitled to propose, and to even implement in the absence of a contrary law passed by Congress) reforms aimed at achieving those goals.

The Third Amendment was one of the amendments cited in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) as evidence that the Constitution protects an implicit right to privacy.

And NCC, thank you. ETA - I keep thinking of Roe but they are just citing Griswold, as you've stated. Thanks.

 

[Fennis]

Is it possible for a regular American citizen to sue Boehner for ACTUALLY neglecting the duties of his office? LawyerGuys? If so, I'm all over it.

your first problem is that unless you live in OH-8 Boehner isn't there to represent you.

 

[NCCommish]

Is it possible for a regular American citizen to sue Boehner for ACTUALLY neglecting the duties of his office? LawyerGuys? If so, I'm all over it.

your first problem is that unless you live in OH-8 Boehner isn't there to represent you.

Not sure about that. As Speaker you could maybe make the case that he represents a lot more than his district. I mean technically he is third in line.

 

[RCon]

Is it possible for a regular American citizen to sue Boehner for ACTUALLY neglecting the duties of his office? LawyerGuys? If so, I'm all over it.

your first problem is that unless you live in OH-8 Boehner isn't there to represent you.

Your second problem is that even if you live in OH-8, Boehner isn't there to represent you, but rather to represent himself and his campaign donors.

 

[skol asylum]

Is it possible for a regular American citizen to sue Boehner for ACTUALLY neglecting the duties of his office? LawyerGuys? If so, I'm all over it.

your first problem is that unless you live in OH-8 Boehner isn't there to represent you.

Your second problem is that even if you live in OH-8, Boehner isn't there to represent you, but rather to represent himself and the lollipop guild.

fixed

 

[Fennis]

Is it possible for a regular American citizen to sue Boehner for ACTUALLY neglecting the duties of his office? LawyerGuys? If so, I'm all over it.

your first problem is that unless you live in OH-8 Boehner isn't there to represent you.

Not sure about that. As Speaker you could maybe make the case that he represents a lot more than his district. I mean technically he is third in line.

while the third in line is a good point, I don't think the SOH is a position that is mean to represent citizens. I think hes there to run House business.

I could be wrong on this one.

 

[Fennis]

Is it possible for a regular American citizen to sue Boehner for ACTUALLY neglecting the duties of his office? LawyerGuys? If so, I'm all over it.

your first problem is that unless you live in OH-8 Boehner isn't there to represent you.

Your second problem is that even if you live in OH-8, Boehner isn't there to represent you, but rather to represent himself and his campaign donors.

welcome to America.

 

[The General]

Boehner has to be the winner of "The Huckleberry Hound look-a-like Contest: Tan Division" right?

 

[drummer]

What does he win?

 

[The General]

Year's worth of bronzer and a half gallon of Old Crow.

 

[NCCommish]

Is it possible for a regular American citizen to sue Boehner for ACTUALLY neglecting the duties of his office? LawyerGuys? If so, I'm all over it.

your first problem is that unless you live in OH-8 Boehner isn't there to represent you.

Not sure about that. As Speaker you could maybe make the case that he represents a lot more than his district. I mean technically he is third in line.

while the third in line is a good point, I don't think the SOH is a position that is mean to represent citizens. I think hes there to run House business.

I could be wrong on this one.

Yeah just throwing it out there, not sure it would fly.

 

[drummer]

Year's worth of bronzer and a half gallon of Old Crow.

Is George Hamilton having a contest?

 

[matuski]

Plus he wasn't even born here.

 

[Rove!]

I'm pretty sure Congress has sued the President several times in the past. Our resident constitutional lawyers will be able to supply the details.

A lot of this depends on the context of the suit (i.e. if Boehner is simply seeking injunctive relief). I'm not sure Obama would be the appropriate party to sue (as opposed to the Secretary of Labor or something). Boehner can't sue over Obama using executive orders too much. He can seek injunctive relief declaring specific executive orders to be unlawful.

EDIT: The foundational opinion in those types of suits is Justice Jackson's concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).

This, kids, is how an adult posts a response in the FFA

 

[timschochet]

I'm pretty sure Congress has sued the President several times in the past. Our resident constitutional lawyers will be able to supply the details.

A lot of this depends on the context of the suit (i.e. if Boehner is simply seeking injunctive relief). I'm not sure Obama would be the appropriate party to sue (as opposed to the Secretary of Labor or something). Boehner can't sue over Obama using executive orders too much. He can seek injunctive relief declaring specific executive orders to be unlawful.

EDIT: The foundational opinion in those types of suits is Justice Jackson's concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).

This, kids, is how an adult posts a response in the FFA

Don't get me wrong, I like Ramsay, but this same "adult" wrote "you come across as stupid" in a response to SaintsInDome2006 over a disagreement about how the 3rd Amendment should be interpreted. I have tons of respect for Ramsay Hunt Experience; he knows a helluva lot more than I do about these subjects (and probably most of us here) and I have a feeling I'm probably on his side on this disagreement as well. But he can be awfully patronizing.

 

[Kevrunner]

Is it possible for a regular American citizen to sue Boehner for ACTUALLY neglecting the duties of his office? LawyerGuys? If so, I'm all over it.

If anyone deserves to be sued it is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, talk about neglecting his duties, he is horrible, just horrible.

 

[The Football Freak]

I'm pretty sure Congress has sued the President several times in the past. Our resident constitutional lawyers will be able to supply the details.

A lot of this depends on the context of the suit (i.e. if Boehner is simply seeking injunctive relief). I'm not sure Obama would be the appropriate party to sue (as opposed to the Secretary of Labor or something). Boehner can't sue over Obama using executive orders too much. He can seek injunctive relief declaring specific executive orders to be unlawful.

EDIT: The foundational opinion in those types of suits is Justice Jackson's concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).

This, kids, is how an adult posts a response in the FFA

Don't get me wrong, I like Ramsay, but this same "adult" wrote "you come across as stupid" in a response to SaintsInDome2006 over a disagreement about how the 3rd Amendment should be interpreted. I have tons of respect for Ramsay Hunt Experience; he knows a helluva lot more than I do about these subjects (and probably most of us here) and I have a feeling I'm probably on his side on this disagreement as well. But he can be awfully patronizing.

Really? Other than upthread, I've found him to be pretty patient and fair. I asked him a question about per curiam decisions a few years back, and he gave me a very detailed and long response. Everyone has an off moment, but I've always thought he seemed like a good guy.

 

[fatness]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0625/Boehner-vs.-Obama-101-Could-plan-to-sue-president-work

Legal experts say the effort has no chance of succeeding, so why is Speaker Boehner pursuing this course? Here's an explanation the political and legal background of the move.

What is this all about?
In a nutshell, it’s about the upcoming midterm elections and satisfying the Republican base, some experts say.

Boehner’s memo accuses Mr. Obama of selectively enforcing, changing, and even creating the law – giving the president dangerous “king-like authority” and even endangering the economy because of the uncertainty he’s creating.

Republicans are angry with Obama’s executive decisions not to deport some children of illegal immigrants; not to inform Congress that he’s released prisoners from Guantánamo Bay; not to enforce federal marijuana laws; and to rely heavily on the Environmental Protection Agency to restrict greenhouse gases, among other things.

By introducing legislation, the speaker allows his caucus a timely, preelection opportunity to deliver juicy sound-bites from the House floor that will be aired on C-SPAN. This is the equivalent of free campaign advertising.

Why won’t this work as a legal challenge?
The first tipoff that the speaker’s plan will fail – as a legal matter, anyway – is his intention to use legislation for authorization to sue the president. Legislation means law. To become law, a bill has to be passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president.

Pre-election showboating.

 

[drummer]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0625/Boehner-vs.-Obama-101-Could-plan-to-sue-president-work

Legal experts say the effort has no chance of succeeding, so why is Speaker Boehner pursuing this course? Here's an explanation the political and legal background of the move.

What is this all about?
In a nutshell, it’s about the upcoming midterm elections and satisfying the Republican base, some experts say.

Boehner’s memo accuses Mr. Obama of selectively enforcing, changing, and even creating the law – giving the president dangerous “king-like authority” and even endangering the economy because of the uncertainty he’s creating.

Republicans are angry with Obama’s executive decisions not to deport some children of illegal immigrants; not to inform Congress that he’s released prisoners from Guantánamo Bay; not to enforce federal marijuana laws; and to rely heavily on the Environmental Protection Agency to restrict greenhouse gases, among other things.

By introducing legislation, the speaker allows his caucus a timely, preelection opportunity to deliver juicy sound-bites from the House floor that will be aired on C-SPAN. This is the equivalent of free campaign advertising.

Why won’t this work as a legal challenge?
The first tipoff that the speaker’s plan will fail – as a legal matter, anyway – is his intention to use legislation for authorization to sue the president. Legislation means law. To become law, a bill has to be passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president.

Pre-election showboating.

What does Boehner have to lose? Besides good skin cells?

 

[Todd Andrews]

When you fail to govern, you turn to KooKGovernment by prosecution.

 

[skycriesmary]

Whether you agree with his stance or not, why would the president be immune to a lawsuit?

Because he is as crooked as the day is long. He is above the law in his mind....

Solid, well thought out analysis here. Did you matriculate at Harvard or Princeton? No, don't tell me. It's Brown, isn't it?

 

[skol asylum]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2014/06/boehner-calls-obama-practice-of-accomplishing-things-unconstitutional.html

 

[joffer]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2014/06/boehner-calls-obama-practice-of-accomplishing-things-unconstitutional.html

lol

 

[fatness]

Boehner's List of Reasons to Sue Obama (submitted by House Republicans to date)

1. Refusing to sign into law numerous laws passed by the House Republican Caucus.

2. Being from Kenya.

3. Being from America

4. That bowing thing.

5. Killing Osama bin Laden without holding hearings with every House committee first.

6. Not providing Osama bin Laden's birth certificate.

7. Drinking beer.

8. Winning 2 presidential elections by using the devious tactic of "electoral votes" instead of "intentions of the framers."

 

[matuski]

I'm pretty sure Congress has sued the President several times in the past. Our resident constitutional lawyers will be able to supply the details.

A lot of this depends on the context of the suit (i.e. if Boehner is simply seeking injunctive relief). I'm not sure Obama would be the appropriate party to sue (as opposed to the Secretary of Labor or something). Boehner can't sue over Obama using executive orders too much. He can seek injunctive relief declaring specific executive orders to be unlawful.

EDIT: The foundational opinion in those types of suits is Justice Jackson's concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).

This, kids, is how an adult posts a response in the FFA

Don't get me wrong, I like Ramsay, but this same "adult" wrote "you come across as stupid" in a response to SaintsInDome2006 over a disagreement about how the 3rd Amendment should be interpreted.I have tons of respect for Ramsay Hunt Experience; he knows a helluva lot more than I do about these subjects (and probably most of us here) and I have a feeling I'm probably on his side on this disagreement as well. But he can be awfully patronizing.

Really? Other than upthread, I've found him to be pretty patient and fair. I asked him a question about per curiam decisions a few years back, and he gave me a very detailed and long response. Everyone has an off moment, but I've always thought he seemed like a good guy.

And coming off as a good guy is what we all strive for. Some of us fall short of FFA good guy-ness and have to carry that burden and shame everywhere we go.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Huh.

Well, this is odd.

Supreme Court Says Obama's NLRB Recess Appointments Were UnconstitutionalThe Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that President Barack Obama's recess appointments to fill slots on the National Labor Relations Board in 2012 were unconstitutional.

The unanimous opinion, written by liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, said that Congress, and only Congress, decides when it is in session and when it is in recess. It ruled the Senate was not in a formal recess when Obama made the 2012 appointments — therefore, they were illegal. (Here's a link to the opinion.)

Obama had said in 2012 he was forced to appoint the three NLRB members, arguing Senate Republicans sought to stop the board from functioning. The administration argued the pro forma sessions held by the Senate every three days were only a sham designed to keep him from filling the posts. But the Supreme Court ruled the technicality Obama used to try to fill the slots did not constitute a formal recess.

"Because the Senate was in session during its pro forma sessions, the President made the recess appointments at issue during a 3-day recess," the opinion read. "Three days is too short a time to bring a recess within the scope of the Clause, so the President lacked the authority to make those appointments."

The case, National Labor Relations Board v. Canning, was a challenge to limit the president's ability to make appointments of federal officials while the Senate is in recess. It specifically challenged three of Obama's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), an independent government agency that conducts elections for labor-union representation and investigates allegations of unfair labor practices.

SCOTUSblog's Tom Goldstein explained the practicality of what it means. Basically, when either chamber of Congress is controlled by the opposing party, the president's recess power is curtailed:

Here is the upshot of the decision. The President can make a recess appointment without Senate confirmation when the Senate says it is in recess. But either the House or the Senate can take the Senate out of recess and force it to hold a "pro forma session" that will block any recess appointment. So while the President's recess appointment power is broad in theory, if either house of Congress is in the hands of the other party, it can be blocked.

The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin wrote last year that the case had the potential to bring Washington even more paralysis and dysfunction. That was before, however, the Senate changed its rules to allow most presidential nominees to be confirmed by majority vote.

The ruling is a victory for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who filed an amicus briefing with other Senate Republicans in the case. McConnell said Thursday the Supreme Court acted decisively to curb Obama's power.

"I welcome the Supreme Court’s important decision today that the President’s so-called 'recess' appointments to the National Labor Relations Board two and one-half years ago were unconstitutional," McConnell said. "This administration has a tendency to abide by laws that it likes and to disregard those it doesn’t. In this case, that disturbing and dangerous tendency extended to the Constitution itself."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid fumed at the decision, saying it emphasized the importance of the Senate rules changes last year that allow nominees to be confirmed by a simple majority vote.

"More than anything, today’s Supreme Court ruling underscores the importance of the rules reform Senate Democrats enacted last November," Reid said. "Without that reform and with today’s ruling, a small but vocal minority would have more power than ever to block qualified nominees from getting a simple up-or-down vote on the floor."

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Supreme-Court-Says-Obama-s-NLRB-Recess-5581506.php

Curious.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ramsey, for your edification, I hope you find this useful in the interest of polite, civil discourse:

Likewise, the debates about quartering illustrate an agreement between the warring
Federalists and Anti-Federalists that individuals should be free from such military intrusions in
the majority of areas. The term “any house”––ultimately codified in the Third Amendment––
was not a narrow exception to the general rule that soldiers could intrude into civilian life; rather
it represented a broad area of private civilian life, in which the people should be free from such
intrusions. The founding debates and the text of the amendment suggest that these intrusions
could permissibly occur only when mass unrest spilled onto the public streets
nation was threatened by war or insurrection.

In short, the peacetime proscription against quartering troops is a categorical ban on
soldiers enforcing law against civilians in all areas in which private citizens may exclude others.
Conversely, the Third Amendment gives Congress blanket authority to allow the military to
enforce laws in this fashion during time of war. This reading, I argue, helps to make sense of the
amendment’s place in the larger constitutional scheme, in which the Founders sought to create a
strong division between civil and military power. In particular, it makes sense of the Third
Amendment’s protection against quartering, in light of the other law enforcement provisions of
the Bill of Rights, particularly the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and
seizures––a protection that would make the Third Amendment’s proscription redundant were it
merely protecting individuals against having their homes seized by soldiers. Because the history
of the Fourth Amendment indicates that it was meant to apply to only unreasonable searches and
seizures conducted by civilian officials, the Third Amendment’s originally intended protection
against the military conducting these activities, is both consistent with and complementary to the
amendment that immediately proceeds it.

19 20 See id. at 700 (James Madison’s Reply). See id. at 699–700; FEDERALIST NO. 29 (Alexander Hamilton), in THE FEDERALIST AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL
PAPERS 153, 155 (Scott ed., 2002).

When viewed in this light, the Third Amendment has significant implications for
contemporary political and constitutional debate. In particular, the protection against quartering
raises serious constitutional questions about the ability of the President to authorize the National
Security Agency (NSA) to intercept communications of individuals living in the United States.
Because the NSA fits the definition of “soldier” in the Third Amendment, it suggests that courts
that have contemplated this problem, so far, are wrong to analyze it under the Fourth
Amendment and instead should analyze warrantless wiretapping under the Third.

...

http://www.securitylawbrief.com/main/2008/08/third-amendment.html

From the Georgetown Law Center on National Security and the Law. At a minimum at least, perhaps, you will find it interesting.

As part of these streamlining responsibilities, the agency has a co-located organization called the Central Security Service (CSS), which was created to facilitate cooperation between NSA and other U.S. military cryptanalysis components.

The origins of the National Security Agency can be traced back to April 28, 1917, three weeks after the U.S. Congress declared war on Germany in World War I. A code and cipher decryption unit was established as the Cable and Telegraph Section which was also known as the Cipher Bureau and Military Intelligence Branch, Section 8 (MI-8). It was headquartered in Washington, D.C. and was part of the war effort under the executive branch without direct Congressional authorization. During the course of the war it was relocated in the army's organizational chart several times. On July 5, 1917, Herbert O. Yardley was assigned to head the unit. At that point, the unit consisted of Yardley and two civilian clerks. It absorbed the navy's cryptoanalysis functions in July 1918. World War I ended on November 11, 1918, and MI-8 moved to New York City on May 20, 1919, where it continued intelligence activities as the Code Compilation Company under the direction of Yardley.

During World War II, the Signal Security Agency (SSA) was created to intercept and decipher the communications of the Axis powers.[23] When the war ended, the SSA was reorganized as the Army Security Agency (ASA), and it was placed under the leadership of the Director of Military Intelligence.

The NSA is led by the Director of the National Security Agency (DIRNSA), who also serves as Chief of the Central Security Service (CHCSS) and Commander of the United States Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) and is the highest-ranking military official of these organizations. He is assisted by a Deputy Director, who is the highest-ranking civilian within the NSA/CSS.

S32 - Tailored Access Operations (TAO), which hacks into foreign computers to conduct cyber-espionage and reportedly is "the largest and arguably the most important component of the NSA's huge Signal Intelligence (SIGINT) Directorate, consisting of over 1,000 military and civilian computer hackers, intelligence analysts, targeting specialists, computer hardware and software designers, and electrical engineers.

The number of NSA employees is officially classified[4] but there are several sources providing estimates. In 1961, NSA had 59,000 military and civilian employees, which grew to 93,067 in 1969, of which 19,300 worked at the headquarters at Fort Meade. In the early 1980s NSA had roughly 50,000 military and civilian personnel. By 1989 this number had grown again to 75,000, of which 25,000 worked at the NSA headquarters.

NSA's eavesdropping mission includes radio broadcasting, both from various organizations and individuals, the Internet, telephone calls, and other intercepted forms of communication. Its secure communications mission includes military, diplomatic, and all other sensitive, confidential or secret government communications.

As part of the National Security Presidential Directive 54/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 23 (NSPD 54), signed on January 8, 2008 by President Bush, the NSA became the lead agency to monitor and protect all of the federal government's computer networks from cyber-terrorism

Etc., etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nsa

Obviously the NSA is essentially military in origin, mission, composition, function and activity. It's hard to imagine the Founders would want to allow the military to do virtually what they would never permit in actuality.

Of course no better statement can be found than that in Griswold:

The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 516-522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In short, these Amendments, together, are of a piece guaranteeing us privacy from civilian and military intrusion into our homes, and lives, both physical and, in this day and age, virtual.

 

[Drunken Poster]

Ramsey, for your edification, I hope you find this useful:

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ramsey, for your edification, I hope you find this useful:

Edited, don't mean to be snarky or impolite.

 

[Drunken Poster]

Ramsey, for your edification, I hope you find this useful:

Edited, don't mean to be snarky or impolite.

Good for you Jack. Ramsey doesn't appear to adhere to the same philosophy.

 

[skol asylum]

Huh.

Well, this is odd.

Supreme Court Says Obama's NLRB Recess Appointments Were UnconstitutionalThe Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that President Barack Obama's recess appointments to fill slots on the National Labor Relations Board in 2012 were unconstitutional.

The unanimous opinion, written by liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, said that Congress, and only Congress, decides when it is in session and when it is in recess. It ruled the Senate was not in a formal recess when Obama made the 2012 appointments — therefore, they were illegal. (Here's a link to the opinion.)

Obama had said in 2012 he was forced to appoint the three NLRB members, arguing Senate Republicans sought to stop the board from functioning. The administration argued the pro forma sessions held by the Senate every three days were only a sham designed to keep him from filling the posts. But the Supreme Court ruled the technicality Obama used to try to fill the slots did not constitute a formal recess.

"Because the Senate was in session during its pro forma sessions, the President made the recess appointments at issue during a 3-day recess," the opinion read. "Three days is too short a time to bring a recess within the scope of the Clause, so the President lacked the authority to make those appointments."

The case, National Labor Relations Board v. Canning, was a challenge to limit the president's ability to make appointments of federal officials while the Senate is in recess. It specifically challenged three of Obama's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), an independent government agency that conducts elections for labor-union representation and investigates allegations of unfair labor practices.

SCOTUSblog's Tom Goldstein explained the practicality of what it means. Basically, when either chamber of Congress is controlled by the opposing party, the president's recess power is curtailed:

Here is the upshot of the decision. The President can make a recess appointment without Senate confirmation when the Senate says it is in recess. But either the House or the Senate can take the Senate out of recess and force it to hold a "pro forma session" that will block any recess appointment. So while the President's recess appointment power is broad in theory, if either house of Congress is in the hands of the other party, it can be blocked.

The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin wrote last year that the case had the potential to bring Washington even more paralysis and dysfunction. That was before, however, the Senate changed its rules to allow most presidential nominees to be confirmed by majority vote.

The ruling is a victory for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who filed an amicus briefing with other Senate Republicans in the case. McConnell said Thursday the Supreme Court acted decisively to curb Obama's power.

"I welcome the Supreme Court’s important decision today that the President’s so-called 'recess' appointments to the National Labor Relations Board two and one-half years ago were unconstitutional," McConnell said. "This administration has a tendency to abide by laws that it likes and to disregard those it doesn’t. In this case, that disturbing and dangerous tendency extended to the Constitution itself."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid fumed at the decision, saying it emphasized the importance of the Senate rules changes last year that allow nominees to be confirmed by a simple majority vote.

"More than anything, today’s Supreme Court ruling underscores the importance of the rules reform Senate Democrats enacted last November," Reid said. "Without that reform and with today’s ruling, a small but vocal minority would have more power than ever to block qualified nominees from getting a simple up-or-down vote on the floor."

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Supreme-Court-Says-Obama-s-NLRB-Recess-5581506.php

Curious.

But Congress has been in recess for years, never getting much of anything done.

 

[timschochet]

Boehner's List of Reasons to Sue Obama (submitted by House Republicans to date)

1. Refusing to sign into law numerous laws passed by the House Republican Caucus.

2. Being from Kenya.

3. Being from America

4. That bowing thing.

5. Killing Osama bin Laden without holding hearings with every House committee first.

6. Not providing Osama bin Laden's birth certificate.

7. Drinking beer.

8. Winning 2 presidential elections by using the devious tactic of "electoral votes" instead of "intentions of the framers."

9. Jealous of his tan?

 

[apalmer]

Boehner's List of Reasons to Sue Obama (submitted by House Republicans to date)

1. Refusing to sign into law numerous laws passed by the House Republican Caucus.

2. Being from Kenya.

3. Being from America

4. That bowing thing.

5. Killing Osama bin Laden without holding hearings with every House committee first.

6. Not providing Osama bin Laden's birth certificate.

7. Drinking beer.

8. Winning 2 presidential elections by using the devious tactic of "electoral votes" instead of "intentions of the framers."

9. Jealous of his tan?

10. Reaching over Sneeze Shields

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Really hope President Clinton comes into office loaded for bear. With none of Obama's "change the culture of Washington" rainbows and unicorns fairy tale.

 

[skol asylum]

Baby bonds. Remember that?

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Whether you agree with his stance or not, why would the president be immune to a lawsuit?

Because he is as crooked as the day is long. He is above the law in his mind....

is the day really that long?

 

[Fennis]

Huh.

Well, this is odd.

Supreme Court Says Obama's NLRB Recess Appointments Were Unconstitutional

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Supreme-Court-Says-Obama-s-NLRB-Recess-5581506.php

Curious.

This was a very good decision and was another good example of Obama sidestepping the Constitution in order to get his way.

 

[fatness]

Boehner's List of Reasons to Sue Obama (submitted by House Republicans to date)
1. Refusing to sign into law numerous laws passed by the House Republican Caucus.
2. Being from Kenya.
3. Being from America
4. That bowing thing.
5. Killing Osama bin Laden without holding hearings with every House committee first.
6. Not providing Osama bin Laden's birth certificate.
7. Drinking beer.
8. Winning 2 presidential elections by using the devious tactic of "electoral votes" instead of "intentions of the framers."

9. Hussein.

10. I mean, come on. Hussein?

 

[NCCommish]

Huh.

Well, this is odd.

Supreme Court Says Obama's NLRB Recess Appointments Were Unconstitutional

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Supreme-Court-Says-Obama-s-NLRB-Recess-5581506.php

Curious.

This was a very good decision and was another good example of Obama sidestepping the Constitution in order to get his way.

This gaveling in for a minute then gaveling out and calling that a session is pretty ridiculous. But it's cool now. Hope the Democrats don't get sued when they do it back to the GOP president.

 

[Greggity]

Is it possible for a regular American citizen to sue Boehner for ACTUALLY neglecting the duties of his office? LawyerGuys? If so, I'm all over it.

If anyone deserves to be sued it is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, talk about neglecting his duties, he is horrible, just horrible.

Yes, he is a flaming idiot along with being a very "dirty" politician. Typical liberal basically....

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2014/06/boehner-calls-obama-practice-of-accomplishing-things-unconstitutional.html

lol

Actually, was wondering today if we actually need a Congress.

What are our reasons for having one if any President can change laws, ignore laws and spend money as he sees fit?

Kind of a serious question, if the Constitutional role of the Congress is obviated, why do we need it?

 

[Fennis]

Huh.

Well, this is odd.

Supreme Court Says Obama's NLRB Recess Appointments Were Unconstitutional

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Supreme-Court-Says-Obama-s-NLRB-Recess-5581506.php

Curious.

This was a very good decision and was another good example of Obama sidestepping the Constitution in order to get his way.

This gaveling in for a minute then gaveling out and calling that a session is pretty ridiculous. But it's cool now. Hope the Democrats don't get sued when they do it back to the GOP president.

I don't have a problem with the Senate not going in recess to prevent recess appointments. There is no longer a need for recess appointments. Communication is instant and travel is all but instant.

and just as a reminder... from wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recess_appointment

For example, during the last two years of the George W. Bush administration, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid prevented any further recess appointments. Bush promised not to make any during the August recess that year, but no agreement was reached for the two-week Thanksgiving break in November 2007. As a result, Reid did not allow adjournments of more than three days from then until the end of the Bush presidency by holding pro forma sessions. Prior to this, there had been speculation that James Holsinger would receive a recess appointment as U.S. surgeon general.

 

[RCon]

I, for one, am shocked that one of our political parties would decry a tactic used by the other party, despite having used that same tactic previously.

 

[NCCommish]

Huh.

Well, this is odd.

Supreme Court Says Obama's NLRB Recess Appointments Were Unconstitutional

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Supreme-Court-Says-Obama-s-NLRB-Recess-5581506.php

Curious.

This was a very good decision and was another good example of Obama sidestepping the Constitution in order to get his way.

This gaveling in for a minute then gaveling out and calling that a session is pretty ridiculous. But it's cool now. Hope the Democrats don't get sued when they do it back to the GOP president.

I don't have a problem with the Senate not going in recess to prevent recess appointments. There is no longer a need for recess appointments. Communication is instant and travel is all but instant.

and just as a reminder... from wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recess_appointment

For example, during the last two years of the George W. Bush administration, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid prevented any further recess appointments. Bush promised not to make any during the August recess that year, but no agreement was reached for the two-week Thanksgiving break in November 2007. As a result, Reid did not allow adjournments of more than three days from then until the end of the Bush presidency by holding pro forma sessions. Prior to this, there had been speculation that James Holsinger would receive a recess appointment as U.S. surgeon general.

Stupid no matter who does it. I know people think I kneejerk defend everything the Democrats do. Those people simply don't pay attention.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I, for one, am shocked that one of our political parties would decry a tactic used by the other party, despite having used that same tactic previously.