4 ms·
I agree that the argument being made by the United States is based on the ability of the executive to classify things. What I wrote was that the bulk of the ar
by nickff 13y ago
I agree that the argument being made by the United States is based on the ability of the executive to classify things. What I wrote was that the bulk of the argument is dedicated to the preservation and extension of government power, rather than compliance with the constitution and laws. Where the constitution is mentioned in this document, the government is describing how and why its explicit protections of fundamental rights should be circumvented, in favor of the broad investment of power in the executive.
It should be noted that the government described no limiting principles which would constrict its ability to censor or otherwise coerce any person.
- gamacodre 13y agoThe limiting principles seem to be encoded in the law[1] that provides the basis for most of the government's arguments - FWIW, passed by both houses of Congress and explicitly granting this discretion to the executive branch. Most of the recent furor seems to be around whether the NSA is actually complying with (d)(1)(A) and (B) or is just gathering up all of our information without the court order required for surveillance of any U.S. citizen inside the U.S. [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1881a http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1881a
- consultant23522 13y agoWhat purpose would it serve the government to describe its limits?
- nickff 13y agoThe government could acknowledge limits, which would be made permanent by a court ruling; these would serve to protect the rights of the citizenry. Many legal doctrines require that limiting principles be attached to each power granted to the government.