'the president has the legal authority', BULLSHIT, WE have the authority!

[mopaul]

let's get this STRAIGHT

[MercutioATC]

1. Unfortunately, we live in a representative Republic.

The President has the authority because "we" gave it to him.

"We" gave it to him by electing him. "We" gave it to him by electing Congressmen who won't stand up to him when it counts. And, since he appoints many of the people who decide what he can and can't do, he'll probably get away with it.

[Hosnon]

2. Yea I agree. The Constitution is very clear that the office of the

Executive has authority - the unfortunate part is who happens to be in that office at the moment.

[stepnw1f]

4. Where Does it Say That in the Constitution? (nt)

[Hosnon]

8. Article II:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

[stepnw1f]

11. Yeah and....?

That does not justify breaking the law. HE IS NOT KING....

[Hosnon]

18. Well I originally posted that the Executive has authority - not any

specific authority.

And the Legislature can't pass laws that infringe on the vested power granted the Executive in the Constitution - a.k.a. Can't outlaw the President's right to fill vacancies in the Senate during Senate recess. So in that sense, yes, the President can break laws.

The question here, with the wiretapping, is whether or not the authority to do so is vested in the Executive by the Constitution.

And many courts have upheld broader "emergency powers" assumed by the Executive during times of crisis.

That said - it would be wise for every President to simply get Congress to sign off on whatever s/he is trying to do. Especially when both houses are controlled by the same party as the President. Congress would have rolled over for a change in the FISA law, no doubt about it.

[stepnw1f]

22. Bullshit... Spin Spin Spin Back

to the Federalist Party.

[Hosnon]

23. Well if you consider decisions handed down by the Supreme Court

to be bullshit/spin then...

And which parts in particular?

[stepnw1f]

25. Good Bye

Have fun trying persuading others...

[Hosnon]

27. I'm not really trying to persuade anyone. You asked for authority for my

statements and I provided it. My end of the conversation has been very civil.

Would only ask that you do the same and not "give me the hand."

[FreedomAngel82]

30. The fourth amendment anyone?

[Hosnon]

34. I haven't ever seen anything about conflicts of law in the Constitution...

Such as...I'm not sure if in a given scenario one amendment trumps another or if there is a hierarchy.

Would be interesting to find out.

And I think that is why the President should have just "told" Congress to amend FISA. Then the searches would have been reviewed and determined to be either reasonable or unreasonable thus satisfying the Fourth.

That is a very interesting point though...

[undergroundpanther]

7. Dont forget...

We hold these truths to be self-evident... that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

[mopaul]

17. it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it,...AMEN

[Strawman]

33. With the "advice and consent" of the Senate

If you want to base your argument on a literal reading of the constitution and the framers intent, there is a strong case that the Senate has every right to check the President here. Orignially the Virginia and New Jersey plans had more than one executive. Orignially there was a push for an executive council to check the president. These plans were abandoned with the understanding that the Senate could serve this function and check the executive. Hence advice and consent. That phrase meant something to the framers.

I guess you're half right, "we" don't have legal authority in a representative republic, but the President doesn't have carte blanche here as your post impiles.

[Hosnon]

35. The Executive is not constrained to act only with the "advice and consent"

of the Senate regarding every power granted it.

[Strawman]

36. But the executive is constrained this way on SCOTUS appointments

Specifically. In Article II.

The power of Colonial Royal Governors to arbitrarily appoint judges was a scary prospect that warranted this check to the framers.

[Hosnon]

38. Yeah I agree. Is the OP about appointments are the wiretapping? It

is vague so I don't really know, come to think of it, what we should be talking about, haha.

[Strawman]

39. Good point

I just assumed it was about the SCOTUS! Doh! I've got Alito on the brain. I think it is about FISA/wiretapping.

This probably would have horrified the framers also, maybe with the exception of Hamilton and a handful of others. But even Hamilton might have thought this was going too far.

[stepnw1f]

3. "We" Didn't Give "Him" Shit

and "he" does not "Represent" "we".

[MercutioATC]

5. That's the reason for the quotation marks...

"We" refers to the American populace as a whole, not the people here at DU.

[stepnw1f]

9. Not Even....

There is NO representation of the "WE". And he needs to be impeached for not representing "we".

[MercutioATC]

13. "We" don't agree with you.

If "we" did, "we" would elect Congressmen who would work to impeach him. That's not happening. "We" feel represented (or at least are apathetic enough to not do anything about it).

[stepnw1f]

15. No... You Don't Agree with Me

Get it straight!

[MercutioATC]

20. Actually, I do agree with you. That's not the point.

The OP stated that the President doesn't have the authority, WE do. My point is that "we" gave him that authority through "our" votes for him, Congress, and past Presidents. It may not be how people here at DU voted, but we live in a country where the citizens have made these decisions...thus the "we" in quotation marks. We are still a part of the "we".

[stepnw1f]

24. Around and Around and Around

I undertood the OP perfectly. And still disagree with your definition of "We" even in the Abstract.

[MercutioATC]

26. Fair enough. We don't agree.

I think it's an important lesson, however. We (and "we") got where we are by decisions that "we" made in the past. To deny that is to view the situation unrealistically, IMO, and works against our (and "our") chances of ever changing things.

[FreedomAngel82]

31. Especially when he stole it both times and was never elected

[MercutioATC]

32. Read Post #10.

Ultimately, "we" are still responsible and "we" need to learn from that.

[Marleyb]

6. But he stole the presidency

He steals the presidency, starts a war which he says is 'generational'....and then says because of the war he can now do whatever he wants!

We are no longer living in a democracy.

[MercutioATC]

10. ...which is still "our" fault.

"We" elected the Congressmen who didn't fight. "We" elected the past Presidents who appointed the SCOTUS. "We're" getting the government we deserve.

That's not to say that it's not worth fighting, but let's keep in mind who's ultimately responsible...."we" are. To deny that lessens our chances of changing it.

[stepnw1f]

37. "We" are Responsible Yet "We" Don't Have the Authority

Did you understand the OP and what he meant by "AUTHORITY" or you just spinning it? This argument of yours is semantical... why? I understand your point, but it has nothing to do with the breadth of this OP.

[MercutioATC]

40. We don't have the authority because "we" gave it up.

I'm not disagreeing with the spirit of the OP, just the reality of it. In spirit, the people of the United States have the authority.

In reality, "we've" elected the Congressmen and Presidents who have put us where "we" are now. The result of that is that we (and "we") have a system where the Executive has claimed powers that it shouldn't have and Congress and the SCOTUS provide legitimacy for the power grab.

Desire to reclaim our (and "our") rightful positions as the ultimate authority is important, but it's important to realize how we (and "we") got here in the first place. The Executive is doing what it's doing with impunity because of the decisions "we've" made. The only way to change that, IMO, is to realize that.

[mopaul]

12. it's THEIR country, we just live in it

[MercutioATC]

14. That's one of the dangers of a representative Republic.

[Justitia]

16. and pay for it. -eom

[donkeyotay]

21. It's your world, Boss.

whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Let's see, House of Representatives does not represent us.
Senate, cheap side of lobby employment wheel.
Free press, isn't.
Judiciary, co-opted.
President, not recallable by election or impeachment.

I dunno, we might be getting to the "long train" part.

[undergroundpanther]

42. Exactomundo!

I think some people are cowards looking to lick the hand of a master rather than be a free EQUAL citizen.]
Representative republics..WHO do they represent? Corporations and criminals,is America? ALL corporations and thugs or are there PEOPLE to be represented? People like me or YOU?
Why did the Boston tea party happen? Because the representation was not happening.And Why did we even BOTHER to succeede from England and write in our founding documents things RIGHTS we have to keep our country safe from desspots,even when those despots are writing the laws?

"All great leaders have understood that their number one responsibility is cultivating their own discipline and personal growth. Those who cannot lead themselves cannot lead others."
-- John Maxwell

[merbex]

19. Yup, in the very first sentence " We the people......

WE ARE BEFORE THE PRESIDENT THE CONGRESS AND THE JUDICIARY

Everyone needs to remember that

[FreedomAngel82]

28. If so why does he need the "Patriot Act"??

[stepnw1f]

29. Say It Louder and Say It Often

WE have the authority.

[dchill]

41. When the president stays within the law...

we are being governed. When he steps outside the law, we are being ruled.

[undergroundpanther]

43. And a free country is not a ruled one.

When despots write laws law is meaningless.