Tag Archives: Constitutional Law

Hey Comander! Start Commanding! by Ann Coulter

Supposedly, the US president can make war all over the planet, but can’t secure America’s own borders. From Ann Coulter at anncoulter.com:

It’s great that members of Congress have located specific legislative language permitting the president to build a border wall, but I’m wondering: Has anybody read the Constitution?

It says:

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”

“(The president) shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

With millions of foreigners illegally pouring across our border, it sure looks like the laws are not being “faithfully executed.” I wonder if the COMMANDER IN CHIEF has any authority to stop it.

The Constitution was expressly designed to make it difficult to do what our military does all the time — fight wars around the globe — and easy to do what our military never does — defend our own country.

Congress was given power to “declare war,” but not to “make war,” for the precise purpose of stalling the march to war. It was a selling point that the legislative branch takes forever to do anything.

But we had a country to protect, so the Constitution gave the energetic, fast-moving president the authority to deploy the military defensively.

As Duke University constitutional law professor H. Jefferson Powell put it in his 2002 book, The President’s Authority over Foreign Affairs: “(T)he president has a constitutional responsibility, independent of any act of Congress … to preserve the physical safety … of the United States against foreign threat.”

Continue reading

Advertisements

Supreme Court: Cops Can’t Track Cell Phone Location Without A Warrant, by Tyler Durden

There’s good news and there’s bad news. The good news is that the Supreme Court came out the right way on a civil liberties issues. The bad news is that it was a 5-4 decision, not the 9-0 it should have been. Which shows how tenuous our civil liberties are. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that law enforcement cannot track people’s movements for periods of weeks or months without a warrant.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court held that the acquisition of cell-site records by government officials is covered under the Fourth Amendment.

Chief Justice John Roberts who wrote the opinion sided with the court’s four liberal judges; Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer – while Justice Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

While stressing that their decision doesn’t question longstanding surveillance techniques and tools such as security cameras, Roberts said that historical cell-site records present even greater privacy concerns than monitoring via GPS.

“Here the progress of science has afforded law enforcement a powerful new tool to carry out its important responsibilities,” Roberts said, adding “While individuals regularly leave their vehicles, they compulsively carry cell phones with them all the time.

“A cell phone faithfully follows its owner beyond public thoroughfares and into private residences, doctor’s offices, political headquarters, and other potentially revealing locales.”

The conservative judges strongly objected – writing four times as much in their dissents than Roberts did for the court’s majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said the government’s search of cellphone location records was permissible because they were held by the service provider, not the individual. “The court’s new and uncharted course will inhibit law enforcement.”

Justice Samuel Alito called it a “revolutionary” ruling that “guarantees a blizzard of litigation while threatening many legitimate and valuable investigative practices upon which law enforcement has rightfully come to rely.” –USA Today

To continue reading: Supreme Court: Cops Can’t Track Cell Phone Location Without A Warrant