zukiphile, most of your point have already been answered by Anitpitas and Pat H's posts. To summarize,
NS, you appear to be arguing a result, comprehensive limitation of exec power well beyond actual COTUS language,
It's not "well beyond COTUS language." I'm arguing
for COTUS language, which does not grant the Executive unlimited power overseas.
NS, I issued to you an invitation to produce the constitutional language that limits the execs power overseas. That you haven't shown us indicates the answer.
Pat H answered this one:
Pat H said:
That's not how the US Constitution works. If a power is not listed, expressly, then that power is non-existent. The US government is granted power, it cannot lawfully create a power not granted.
zukiphile said:
Do you think FISA amends the COTUS?
Of course not, but I also don't think that anyone in power these days particularly cares what the COTUS says, either. The Executive is apparently engaged in domestic dragnet surveillance and domestic/international warrantless wiretapping, according to the links I posted earlier. These are violations, yet they may get away with it due to the "state secrets" argument.
Also note my earlier comment about how if it's legal to tap an internationally routed call without a warrant, then it's trivial to tap any
domestic call without a warrant, simply by asking the phone company to route calls through (for example) Mexico. And again, there's no oversight.
Seriously, this is Orwellian stuff... it's not quite as intrusive as the telescreens from
1984, but if this is legal, what's to stop more invasive surveillance? It's somewhat analagous to the
Heller case, in that a loss here effectively means that the Constitution is meaningless.
Emphasis added. NS, if an international communication is intercepted overseas, it isn't domestic and 4th Am protections are not present.
Here, I'll quote Antipitas:
Antipitas said:
I'm not aware of a case in which the expectation of privacy, while on the phone, was limited to the national boundary, like those other items.
WA said:
So thats your response to your lack of facts...ad hominems....nice
No, that's my response to you
ignoring the data I've presented (which, I might add, is far more informative than the... ahem...
total lack of information that you've presented to refute it.)
By the way I see another Snooping case got dismissed.
Which one? EDIT: found it (Google to the rescue), the ACLU case, denied cert. on standing issues (essentially due to secrecy.) Nothing new here.