14 Constitutional Scholars agree Bush Broke the Law

[DemPower]

Dear Members of Congress:

We are scholars of constitutional law and former government officials. We write in our individual capacities as citizens concerned by the Bush Administration's National Security Agency domestic spying program, as reported in the New York Times, and in particular to respond to the Justice Department's December 22, 2005 letter to the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees setting forth the administration's defense of the program. Although the program's secrecy prevents us from being privy to all of its details, the Justice Department's defense of what it concedes was secret and warrantless electronic surveillance of persons within the United States fails to identify any plausible legal authority for such surveillance. Accordingly the program appears on its face to violate existing law.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/why-the-nsa-surveillance-_b_13522.html

[Mythsaje]

1. Meanwhile, the rest of us

pretty much knew as much as soon as we heard about it.

What took them so long?

[troubleinwinter]

6. This article/letter is from January 2006. Not new.

[mmonk]

2. Those constitutional people keep trying to throw congress hints.

Haven't they learned anything?

[DemPower]

3. To say there is not enough evidence to impeach is absurd!

U. Chicago Law Professor Geoffrey Stone, Georgetown U. Law Professor David Cole, and U. Massachusetts Law School Dean Lawrence Velvel - agree: “Some legal questions are hard. This one is not. Mr. Bush’s authorizing of the NSA to spy on Americans is blatantly unlawful and unconstitutional.”

But is it an impeachable offense? Mr. Bush has committed an impeachable offense.
Mr. Bush is the first president ever to admit that he committed an impeachable offense.

The opposite opinion - that Mr. Bush’s warrantless domestic wiretapping program is legal, as contended by his lawyers - simply cannot be taken seriously. Indeed, it’s so erroneous that “it’s not even close.”
http://www.orbstandard.com/News/Peterson/Peterson_On_the_Necessity_of_Impeachment.html

[BootinUp]

4. exactly, its a political question, not a constitutional one.

Did I confuse anyone?

[WiseButAngrySara]

5. Leave no stone unturned, Prof. Stone! Blatant, indeed. ....n/t

[AntiFascist]

8. It's just an excuse for them to admit they are wimping out. n/t

[cali]

7. Do any of them support

introducing articles of impeachment before conducting investigations?

[tavalon]

9. I think their point is

that the pResident provided the most damning evidence already. Even if there were no further investigation, we can say, without any doubt that GWB has in fact done impeachable acts.

[Swamp Rat]

10. k&r