George F. Will: Stopping a lawless president

[yota691]

George F. Will: Stopping a lawless president

•  

 

GEORGE F. WILL Opinion Writer   

George F. Will writes a twice-weekly column on politics and domestic and foreign affairs. He began his column with The Post in 1974, and he received the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary in 1977. He is also a contributor to FOX News’ daytime and primetime programming.

 

 

June 20

What philosopher Harvey Mansfield calls “taming the prince” — making executive power compatible with democracy’s abhorrence of arbitrary power — has been a perennial problem of modern politics. It is now more urgent in the United States than at any time since the Founders, having rebelled against George III’s unfettered exercise of “royal prerogative,” stipulated that presidents “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Serious as are the policy disagreements roiling Washington, none is as important as the structural distortion threatening constitutional equilibrium. Institutional derangement driven by unchecked presidential aggrandizement did not begin with Barack Obama, but his offenses against the separation of powers have been egregious in quantity and qualitatively different.

Regarding immigration, health care, welfare, education, drug policy and more, Obama has suspended, waived and rewritten laws, including theAffordable Care Act. It required the employer mandate to begin this year. But Obama wrote a new law, giving to companies of a certain size a delay until 2016 and stipulating that other employers must certify they will not drop employees to avoid the mandate. Doing so would trigger criminal perjury charges; so he created a new crime, that of adopting a business practice he opposes.

Presidents must exercise some discretion in interpreting laws, must havesome latitude in allocating finite resources to the enforcement of laws and must have some freedom to act in the absence of law. Obama, however, has perpetrated more than 40 suspensions of laws. Were presidents the sole judges of the limits of their latitude, they would effectively have plenary power to vitiate the separation of powers, the Founders’ bulwark against despotism.

 

Congress cannot reverse egregious executive aggressions such as Obama’s without robust judicial assistance. It is, however, difficult to satisfy the criteria that the Constitution and case law require for Congress to establish “standing” to seek judicial redress for executive usurpations injurious to the legislative institution .

President Barack Obama. (Dennis Brack / Pool/EPA)

Courts, understandably fearful of being inundated by lawsuits from small factions of disgruntled legislators, have been wary of granting legislative standing. However, David Rivkin, a Washington lawyer, and Elizabeth Price Foley of Florida International University have studied the case law and believe that standing can be obtained conditional on four things:

That a majority of one congressional chamber explicitly authorizes a lawsuit. That the lawsuit concern the president’s “benevolent” suspension of an unambiguous provision of law that, by pleasing a private faction, precludes the appearance of a private plaintiff. That Congress cannot administer political self-help by remedying the presidential action by simply repealing the law. And that the injury amounts to nullification of Congress’s power.

Hence the significance of a House lawsuit, advocated by Rivkin and Foley, that would unify fractious Republicans while dramatizing Obama’s lawlessness. The House would bring a civil suit seeking a judicial declaration that Obama has violated the separation of powers by effectively nullifying a specific provision of a law, thereby diminishing Congress’s power. Authorization of this lawsuit by the House would give Congress “standing” to sue.

 

Congress’s authorization, which would affirm an institutional injury rather than some legislators’ personal grievances, satisfies the first criterion. Obama’s actions have fulfilled the rest by nullifying laws and thereby rendering the Constitution’s enumeration of Congress’s power meaningless.

The House has passed a bill sponsored by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) that would guarantee expedited consideration by federal courts of House resolutions initiating lawsuits to force presidents to “faithfully execute” laws. But as a bill, it is impotent unless and until Republicans control the Senate and a Republican holds the president’s signing pen.

Some say the judicial branch should not intervene because if Americans are so supine that they tolerate representatives who tolerate such executive excesses, they deserve to forfeit constitutional government. This abstract doctrine may appeal to moralists lacking responsibilities. For the judiciary, it would be dereliction of the duty to protect the government’s constitutional structure. It would be perverse for courts to adhere to a doctrine of congressional standing so strict that it precludes judicial defense of the separation of powers.

Advocates of extreme judicial quietism to punish the supine people leave the people’s representatives no recourse short of the extreme and disproportionate “self help” of impeachment. Surely courts should not encourage this. The cumbersome and divisive blunderbuss process of impeachment should be a rare recourse. Furthermore, it would punish a president for anti-constitutional behavior but would not correct the injury done to the rule of law.

 

 

Surely the Republican House majority would authorize a lawsuit. And doing so would establish Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) as the legislature’s vindicator.

[divemaster5734]

I think if conservatives take over both houses obummer may finally hear the screech of the fat lady.

 

If conservatives do take both houses, and continue to quiver in abject fear, it will be time for Americans to force the issue.

[AmericaInc]

I think if conservatives take over both houses obummer may finally hear the screech of the fat lady.

 

If conservatives do take both houses, and continue to quiver in abject fear, it will be time for Americans to force the issue.

Too bad the little pompous geek Will didn't write a commentary trying stop the last lawless President...

 

...who took away our Constitutional rights with the Patriot Act, started two illegal war with lies and trashed our economy...

[dontlop]

Too bad the little pompous geek Will didn't write a commentary trying stop the last lawless President...

 

...who took away our Constitutional rights with the Patriot Act, started two illegal war with lies and trashed our economy...

You got a lot to learn

[doctor robbins]

Too bad the little pompous geek Will didn't write a commentary trying stop the last lawless President...

 

...who took away our Constitutional rights with the Patriot Act, started two illegal war with lies and trashed our economy...

 

Actually he did.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/15/AR2006021502003.html

[Whatshername]

Too bad the little pompous geek Will didn't write a commentary trying stop the last lawless President...

...who took away our Constitutional rights with the Patriot Act, started two illegal war with lies and trashed our economy...

You just keep repeating those old, stale talking points... that no WMDs were EVER found in Iraq... all your low-info peeps just love that narrative! One problem... the LIE is from the left, the truth was all but OMITTED by the media to the public and PERPETUATED by you Bush-haters to this day. Do your homework, Professor... Here's your assignment. (There will be a test! )

There's the "No WMDs" Lie... and then there's the TRUTH...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/06/17/ap-pair-continues-no-wmds-lie-defines-anyone-who-doesnt-support-military

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/08/14/the-no-wmd-lie-the-sequel-and-finale/

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/07/31/the-iraq-no-wmd-lie-game-set-match/

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2010/10/24/imagine-that-wikileaks-docs-show-there-were-wmds-iraq/

http://news.investors.com/070808-462856-saddams-nukes.htm?p=full

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/#.U6X7OWt5mK1

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/4976/

Thanks, as always, Yota

Edited June 24, 2014 by Whatshername

[DinarMillionaire]

You just keep repeating those old, stale talking points... that no WMDs were EVER found in Iraq... all your low-info peeps just love that narrative! One problem... the LIE is from the left, the truth was all but OMITTED by the media to the public and PERPETUATED by you Bush-haters to this day. Do your homework, Professor... Here's your assignment. (There will be a test! )

There's the "No WMDs" Lie... and then there's the TRUTH...http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/06/17/ap-pair-continues-no-wmds-lie-defines-anyone-who-doesnt-support-militaryhttp://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/08/14/the-no-wmd-lie-the-sequel-and-finale/ http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/07/31/the-iraq-no-wmd-lie-game-set-match/http://www.bizzyblog.com/2010/10/24/imagine-that-wikileaks-docs-show-there-were-wmds-iraq/http://news.investors.com/070808-462856-saddams-nukes.htm?p=fullhttp://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/#.U6X7OWt5mK1http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/4976/

Thanks, as always, Yota

Surely, you, and a lot of people on this site have noticed...This so called, self proclaimed "professor" is too ignorant to actually have a job in academia. He knows nothing about history, zip! He runs his mouth, as if he has chronic diarrhea of the mouth and no brain for a clutch between that empty head and his mouth (fingers). He bores me when he tries to bring me into his tiny little discussions with no substance nor facts (a usual Liberal trait). I usually just ignore his ignorance unless he engages me directly, to which I, very simply, just chew him up and spit him out. To which he has no intelligent comeback. But, he's a glutton for punishment. Never learns from his mistakes (another Liberal trait). Edited June 24, 2014 by DinarMillionaire

[Jaxinjersey]

Surely, you, and a lot of people on this site have noticed...This so called, self proclaimed "professor" is too ignorant to actually have a job in academia. He knows nothing about history, zip! He runs his mouth, as if he has chronic diarrhea of the mouth and no brain for a clutch between that empty head and his mouth (fingers). He bores me when he tries to bring me into his tiny little discussions with no substance nor facts (a usual Liberal trait). I usually just ignore his ignorance unless he engages me directly, to which I, very simply, just chew him up and spit him out. To which he has no intelligent comeback. But, he's a glutton for punishment. Never learns from his mistakes (another Liberal trait).

Ummmmm.... yup, we've noticed!  Fun.... but not very tasty! 

[AmericaInc]

Got some nasty comments about me personally. Which are always funny - as you know nothing of me personally. And as usual, nothing of substance. Patriot Act? Nothing. Loss of Habeus Corpus under Bush the oilman? Nothing.

 

As usual, just more hateful hot air and conservative lies.

 

Anyone ever tell you hate breeds an unhappy life? Probably not.

You just keep repeating those old, stale talking points... that no WMDs were EVER found in Iraq... all your low-info peeps just love that narrative! One problem... the LIE is from the left, the truth was all but OMITTED by the media to the public and PERPETUATED by you Bush-haters to this day. Do your homework, Professor... Here's your assignment. (There will be a test! )

There's the "No WMDs" Lie... and then there's the TRUTH...


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/06/17/ap-pair-continues-no-wmds-lie-defines-anyone-who-doesnt-support-military

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/08/14/the-no-wmd-lie-the-sequel-and-finale/

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/07/31/the-iraq-no-wmd-lie-game-set-match/

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2010/10/24/imagine-that-wikileaks-docs-show-there-were-wmds-iraq/

http://news.investors.com/070808-462856-saddams-nukes.htm?p=full

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/#.U6X7OWt5mK1

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/4976/


Thanks, as always, Yota

Absolute BS

 

Don't you think if they had found WMD it would have been all over FOX the Republican megaphone?

 

Please

[DinarMillionaire]

Got some nasty comments about me personally. Which are always funny - as you know nothing of me personally. And as usual, nothing of substance. Patriot Act? Nothing. Loss of Habeus Corpus under Bush the oilman? Nothing.

 

As usual, just more hateful hot air and conservative lies.

 

Anyone ever tell you hate breeds an unhappy life? Probably not.

Absolute BS

 

Don't you think if they had found WMD it would have been all over FOX the Republican megaphone?

 

Please

I've biotched about Bush 'til I'm blue in the face. News flash...he's NOT the President anymore. You want to spend your time wisely? You have much, much more to ****** about the current idiot. But you choose not to, because he's YOUR idiot. That's where you lose all credibility. If you don't like what Bush did, you should really hate what that MF in the White House is doing now. But, like I said he's your idiot so, where's your criticisms now? You lose any argument, when all you can criticize is someone who's retired and gone for, what 6 years now? Where's your outrage of the CURRENT IDIOT? Oh, that's right he's your idiot, so you're OK with him. That's why you will always lose any discussion regarding right and wrong, you pick and choose your idiot every time...even if he's worst than the last guy. You want any credibility? Dog the worst POS President in American history, instead of bringing up retired old guys.

[Whatshername]

Got some nasty comments about me personally. Which are always funny - as you know nothing of me personally. And as usual, nothing of substance. Patriot Act? Nothing. Loss of Habeus Corpus under Bush the oilman? Nothing.

 

As usual, just more hateful hot air and conservative lies.

 

Anyone ever tell you hate breeds an unhappy life? Probably not.

Absolute BS

 

Don't you think if they had found WMD it would have been all over FOX the Republican megaphone?

NOT BS...  FACT!

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

Did you do your homework assignment?  I doubt it and that's why I predict you will fail my little quiz...

Q.  How many metric tons of YELLOWCAKE URANIUM were found in Iraq?

A.  550... metric tons

Q.  How many SERIN and MUSTARD GAS projectiles were found?

A.  Over 500 remained in Iraq AFTER the invasion including labs capable of producing more. 

Q.  At the time of the invasion, how many  INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES (world-wide) believed Saddam still had a functioning WMD program?

A.  ALL OF THEM!  

Q.  What did the democrats say about WMDs and Saddam?

A.  "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…"

   – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

   – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

   – President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program."

  - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

   – Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

   – Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton.

   – (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

   – Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 

"Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

   – Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."

   – Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

   – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 

"Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

   – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

   – Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…"

   – Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

   – Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

   – Sen. Hillarious Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

   – Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 

Liars, one and all?  

"...  it should now be obvious to anyone that the “no WMD” argument was a canard raised by an intellectually dishonest opposition movement desperate to find something, anything, to discredit the logic behind the invasion."... because "Bush LIED" had such a ring to it. 

As for the Patriot Act (spit!), I can admit that it was wrong from the beginning. Can you admit that obama has not only embraced the authority it gives him, but made it a lot worse?

The USA PATRIOT Act is an Act of Congress that was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. The title of the act is a ten-letter backronym (USA PATRIOT) that stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.

On May 26, 2011, President Barack Obama signed the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, a four-year extension of three key provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act:[2] roving wiretaps, searches of business records (the "library records provision"), and conducting surveillance of "lone wolves"—individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups.

I apologize once more if I've hurt your feelings by challenging your intellectual honesty. And just for the record... FOX news, IMO, doesn't go far enough in exposing the truth. Too "fair and balanced" for my liking!  When I want the WHOLE TRUTH... that's not where I go to find it.  I'm not spoon-fed like you... I dig for it... it's out there!  Wake up, Professor... you're being fed lies. 

 

Please

Got some nasty comments about me personally. Which are always funny - as you know nothing of me personally. And as usual, nothing of substance. Patriot Act? Nothing. Loss of Habeus Corpus under Bush the oilman? Nothing.

 

As usual, just more hateful hot air and conservative lies.

 

Anyone ever tell you hate breeds an unhappy life? Probably not.

Absolute BS

 

Don't you think if they had found WMD it would have been all over FOX the Republican megaphone?

 

Please

NOT BS...  FACT!

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

Did you do your homework assignment?  I doubt it and that's why I predict you will fail my little quiz...

Q.  How many metric tons of YELLOWCAKE URANIUM were found in Iraq?

A.  550... metric tons

Q.  How many SERIN and MUSTARD GAS projectiles were found?

A.  Over 500 remained in Iraq AFTER the invasion including labs capable of producing more. 

Q.  At the time of the invasion, how many  INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES (world-wide) believed Saddam still had a functioning WMD program?

A.  ALL OF THEM!  

Q.  What did the democrats say about WMDs and Saddam?

A.  "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…"

   – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

   – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

   – President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program."

  - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

   – Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

   – Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton.

   – (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

   – Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 

"Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

   – Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."

   – Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

   – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 

"Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

   – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

   – Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…"

   – Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

   – Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

   – Sen. Hillarious Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

   – Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 

Liars, one and all?  

"...  it should now be obvious to anyone that the “no WMD” argument was a canard raised by an intellectually dishonest opposition movement desperate to find something, anything, to discredit the logic behind the invasion."... because "Bush LIED" had such a ring to it. 

As for the Patriot Act (spit!), I can admit that it was wrong from the beginning. Can you admit that obama has not only embraced the authority it gives him, but made it a lot worse?

The USA PATRIOT Act is an Act of Congress that was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. The title of the act is a ten-letter backronym (USA PATRIOT) that stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.

On May 26, 2011, President Barack Obama signed the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, a four-year extension of three key provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act:[2] roving wiretaps, searches of business records (the "library records provision"), and conducting surveillance of "lone wolves"—individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups.

I apologize once more if I've hurt your feelings by challenging your intellectual honesty. And just for the record... FOX news, IMO, doesn't go far enough in exposing the truth. Too "fair and balanced" for my liking!  When I want the WHOLE TRUTH... that's not where I go to find it.  I'm not spoon-fed like you... I dig for it... it's out there!  Wake up, Professor... you're being fed lies. 

[tankdude]

Just an interesting tie in -

 

http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-could-house-sue-president-refusing-carry-101605570--politics.html

 

WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND…
 
The Constitution has nothing to say about ways to cure the kind of gridlock that now exists in the national government in Washington. There is frustration in the White House as President Obama finds himself unable to get much of his legislative program through Congress, and there is frustration in Congress – especially in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives – whenever the President takes unilateral action to put some of his policies into effect without legislative approval.
 
Neither side seems willing to yield, and the Constitution – based as it is on the benign assumption that those in national leadership will always find ways to govern, more or less successfully – has no specific provision to force compromise.   The checks-and-balances written into the division of government powers can turn out to barriers to action, especially in circumstances like those that now prevail in the nation’s capital.
 
It is perhaps tempting to think, as the commentary by columnist George Will suggests, that this is a problem that ought to be handed over to the courts: get them involved to enforce the lines of demarcation between what Congress does and what presidents are allowed to do.
 
However, there is, and has long been, a constitutional barrier to the courts acting as an arbiter of inter-branch disputes between Congress and the White House.   Its origin is in the Constitution’s Article III, and its meaning comes from the way the courts have interpreted the limitation spelled out there.   “The judicial power,” it says, “shall extend to all cases…and controversies.”   A “case or controversy” means, in this context, a live lawsuit, with those on each side having something genuinely in dispute, and that something is capable of being decided by the use of rules of law.
 
The courts, in short, will not decide mere abstract legal controversies, and they will not hand out advisory opinions on how the laws or the Constitution are to be interpreted. Courts have a number of ways of showing respect for those restrictions on their power, and one of them is to refuse to decide what is called a “political question.”   In this sense, “political” does not mean a partisan issue; it means an issue that the courts find has to be decided, if it is decided at all, only by the “political” branches: Congress and the Executive Branch.
 
Time after time, when members of Congress have sued in the courts, because the Executive Branch did something that they believe frustrated the will of Congress, they have been met at the door of the courthouse with a polite refusal to let them in. Failing to get their way in the skirmishing with the White House does not give members of Congress a right to take their grievance into court. Frustration does not make a real lawsuit, according to this notion
 

[AmericaInc]

You got a lot to learn

Exactly what is untrue about this last sentence?