What do NSA's likely excesses and DOMA have in common?

[stupidicus]

I'd say they are both laws on the books.

In the one case, BHO decided he/we could/should ignore the law based on his perceiving it as unconstitutional http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/obama-doma-unconstitutional_n_827134.html whereas in the latter that isn't as far as we know, even under consideration. This is why more than anything else, I think all of the arguments I've seen made regarding who does and doesn't own this abomination, give him a disproportionate share of that ownership. Similarly, I’ve never understood the “well he has to, because if another attack occurs rightwingers will crucify him!” line. How I’d ask, by revealing state secrets in the form of what could be done versus what has been done that Snowden shined the spotlight on?

One could make the case that he simply doesn't think unconstitutionality to be the case, but if that's so, why not make that case? It looks like a chink has been found in the secrecy armor https://www.eff.org/document/fisc-opinion-and-order-granting-effs-motion and the likelihood of other Snowdens and revelations are inevitable anyway -- kinda like the terrorists communicating in ways most of this garbage won't catch going forward. I’d question how many have been caught recently based on this stuff alone anyway. http://www.juancole.com/2013/06/others-headley-rotella.html#more-34906

And how are we to ever know if the proper and acceptable balance has been struck between our 4th Amendment rights and national security if we don't know the extent of the infringements upon them? Imo, this situation adds some life and truth to the worst thing Saint Raygun ever said as President to be and beyond -- "the nine most feared words in the English language are - "I'm with the Government and I'm here to help.", which led directly to the brand of rightwingnuttery we are burdened with today. I'd grant that his reasons for uttering those words were grounded in economic, etc, issues as opposed to national security, but distrust is distrust.

The last thing this country needs is more distrust in its government, and I don't see how this whole issue can be discussed and debated without considering the ramifications of further erosions. This of course can translate into voter participation or not http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-admits-democratic-turnout-dips-in-midterm-elections?ref=fpb and with 2014 just around the corner, I'd think participation is what the dems would want, and this discourages that -- kinda like continuing to support DOMA would have, or chained cpi being shoved down our collective throats. And the need for that trust is hardly confined to trifling issues. http://consortiumnews.com/2013/06/12/obamas-dangerous-dilemma/

BHO is just a small part of the big picture, even though he has the greatest influence right now on what that big picture will inevitably be. The cult of personality that are subordinating the issues to keeping his Teflon coat intact are obviously blind to that fact. While hindsight is no replacement for foresight, it remains far better than the blindness a lack of using it results in.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

And like all iceberg riders http://thehill.com/video/house/305047-dem-rep-lawmakers-learned-significantly-more-about-surveillance-programs-in-nsa-briefing of the past, BHO is gonna lose the perch he now has. The only question in my mind is will the “evolution” card prevent the tarnishment of his legacy over this in the minds of many.

[JoePhilly]

1. That's some serious nonsense.

In the case of DOMA, the Obama administration is focusing on one law, DOMA, as unconstitional.

You are demanding that Obama do the same thing to a wide array of what would be specific laws, well, they would be specific if you specified them beyond calling them "NSA's likely excesses".

Let's take just one of the specific laws involed here, the FISA Act of 1978. Is that one of the laws Obama should claim is unconstitutional? Are the FISA courts unconstitutional? On what basis would the President make that claim? Was Carter wrong to sign those into law in the first place?

I keep seeing people post abstract high level demands while avoiding to engage specifics.

Connecting the abstract notion that Obama should try to stop "NSA's likely excesses", to something specific like DOMA, doesn't fly unless you define "NSA's likely excesses, including all of the specific laws that you think Obama should claim are unconstitutional.

[stupidicus]

3. because you say so?

that's the nonsense

I didn't say anything about his denouncing or ignoring a "wide array" of laws, just those practices under them that distort through interpretation of either legislative intent or judicial decisions, and where a reasonable case can be made for constitutional dubiousness. I was making a case for what his perogatives http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thefreedictionary.com%2Fprerogative&ei=6_G5Udi_E8yPyAGL64H4CQ&usg=AFQjCNFDIjYMG7wnslem_-KvcvGTR4C4tQ&sig2=_Bif1QMBWkdsqIZVlhAUKA&bvm=bv.47883778,d.aWc are and aren't, and that he's exercised them in the one case and perhaps not the other, on consitutional grounds. It was a general case, not one for their being "identical".

For example, the case has already been made that http://epic.org/2013/06/epic-to-congress-verizon-surve-1.html that transgressions of the legal and perhaps unconstitutional type have occurred, that differ little in form, only substance, from the things argued in the abandonment of DOMA. Are you saying that BHO couldn't have put the kibosh to getting "solely" American material in arguable violation of FISA, a law which waa enacted to preserve the constitutionality of their efforts?

Perhaps maybe I was a bit presumptuous in taking for granted that all readers would be knowledgeable enough of all the details to understand what I was driving at. I also feel no need to

"Connecting the abstract notion that Obama should try to stop "NSA's likely excesses", to something specific like DOMA, doesn't fly unless you define "NSA's likely excesses, including all of the specific laws that you think Obama should claim are unconstitutional."

as a result.

The comparison isn't about whether the respective laws are inherently constitutional (when the SCOTUS answers that for DOMA let me know http://www.wbtv.com/story/22565961/scotus-decision-on-doma-gay-marriage-could-be-announced-thursday and as we in the know know, FISA is a much tougher nut to crack http://www.npr.org/2013/02/26/172998760/supreme-court-makes-it-harder-to-challenge-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-act I hope you weren't "standing" when you read that) but rather simply and solely about how he's exercised his perogative where questions of constitutionaliy have arisen with them. Clearly, if what are clearly unconstitutional practices have occurred in the use/enforcement of FISA as many believe to be the case, there's a glaring inconsistency and selective use of the "constitutionality" card.

do try to have a good day -- I gotta scoot

[JoePhilly]

5. You certainly did, by using a broad phrase, and not indicating the specific laws

that Obama should treat "just like DOMA".

And you declaring that "if what are clearly unconstitutional practices have occurred" ... really ... they are "clearly unconstitutional"?

Which "practices"?

You can't argue that Obama should treat this situation like DOMA, and not address the specific laws directly.

I'm not surprised you are going to "scoot".

[stupidicus]

7. thanks for conceding the validity of my observations and accompanying remarks

I used a "broad phrase"? My, my, what a sin that is.

Don't blame me if you can't wrap your mind around the easily understandable concept of his using his perogative to act or not to act based on legality/constitutional issues, like FISA not being intended to be used solely against Americans as the link made the case for.

I'm not surprised that you're surprised someone has a life outside of DU, and that you think merely putting you on notice there'd be no more responses immediately forthcoming is indicative of what, running from the likes of you? Ge, whatta gonna do, beat me to death with a straw bale?

The fact that he could choose on constitutional grounds -- like he did with DOMA -- not to do this or that remains unrebutted, so why would I fear someone making a case I never made? The issue isn't the "laws" themselves so much, but rather his exercising his perogative based on constitutional grounds, to defend or not to defend in court, legal chalenges to those laws whether in whole or in part. He did so for DOMA challenges, but has endlessly cited states secrets or national security to quash them in regards to FISA/NSA challenges. That's why I noted be could think it's all constitutional.

ANd I didn't say "he should treat it like DOMA" and ignore the whole of FISA, I made the case that should some unconstitutional practices be occuring due to their interpretation of Section 215 decisions rendered by the FISA court as some have alleged, or the FISA court itself has overstepped its authority by sanctioning the targeting of solely Americans under the act, then he has more ownership of the unconstitutional transgressions than some have claimed should they exist.

try a remedial reading comp course, and get back with me.

[forestpath]

2. K&R

[geek tragedy]

4. Second sentence is false. Obama is still enforcing DOMA, even though

he's not defending it in court.

The President can't refuse to comply with statutes just because he views them as constitutional.

[JoePhilly]

6. Details, details, details ...

Why should we discuss the specific statutes that are in question here?

Let's just call it SPYING.

[stupidicus]

8. and?

that's in the body of the statement from the JD.

while the argument could have been worded a bit better/clarified to make that clear, exactly how does that negatively impact the fact that he's not defending it but is all the stuff associated with FISA/the NSA with national security/state secrets claims?