Building on the Domestic Spygate post below, I just got smacked in the face by a wet paintbrush full of hypocrisy. The government is claiming that the president has the right to do whatever the hell he wants to protect the country as commander-in-chief. I'd say justifying spying on Americans by using his "Commander-in-Chief" powers as enumerated in the constitution represents a break from the oft-repeated line about "strictly interpreting" the constitution. Would a true strict-constructionist see that the constitution allows the president to break laws in times of war? Especially spying on citizens? Or is that whole strict-constructionist slogan just b.s. shorthand for the Constitution not explicitly containing a right to privacy and therefore rendering Roe null and void.
He could have handled this all through FISA, they just didn't want to hassle with it and thought they were above the law.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment