[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

$200 Silver Is "VERY ATTAINABLE In Coming Rush" Here's Why - Mike Maloney Trump’s Project 2025 and Big Tech could put 30% of jobs at risk by 2030 Brigitte Macron is going all the way to a U.S. court to prove she’s actually a woman China's 'Rocket Artillery 360 Mile Range 990 Pound Warhead FED's $3.5 Billion Gold Margin Call France Riots: Battle On Streets Of Paris Intensifies After Macron’s New Move Sparks Renewed Violence Saudi Arabia Pakistan Defence pact agreement explained | Geopolitical Analysis Fooling Us Badly With Psyops The Nobel Prize That Proved Einstein Wrong Put Castor Oil Here Before Bed – The Results After 7 Days Are Shocking Sounds Like They're Trying to Get Ghislaine Maxwell out of Prison Mississippi declared a public health emergency over its infant mortality rate (guess why) Andy Ngo: ANTIFA is a terrorist organization & Trump will need a lot of help to stop them America Is Reaching A Boiling Point The Pandemic Of Fake Psychiatric Diagnoses This Is How People Actually Use ChatGPT, According To New Research Texas Man Arrested for Threatening NYC's Mamdani Man puts down ABC's The View on air Strong 7.8 quake hits Russia's Kamchatka My Answer To a Liberal Professor. We both See Collapse But.. Cash Jordan: “Set Them Free”... Mob STORMS ICE HQ, Gets CRUSHED By ‘Deportation Battalion’’ Call The Exterminator: Signs Demanding Violence Against Republicans Posted In DC Crazy Conspiracy Theorist Asks Questions About Vaccines New owner of CBS coordinated with former Israeli military chief to counter the country's critics, BEST VIDEO - Questions Concerning Charlie Kirk, Douglas Macgregor - IT'S BEGUN - The People Are Rising Up! Marine Sniper: They're Lying About Charlie Kirk's Death and They Know It! Mike Johnson Holds 'Private Meeting' With Jewish Leaders, Pledges to Screen Out Anti-Israel GOP Candidates Jimmy Kimmel’s career over after ‘disgusting’ lies about Charlie Kirk shooter [Plus America's Homosexual-In-Chief checks-In, Clot-Shots, Iryna Zarutska and More!] 1200 Electric School Busses pulled from service due to fires.

Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Senate caves to Bush on telecom immunity
Source: Raw Story
URL Source: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Senat ... s_to_Bush_on_telecom_1018.html
Published: Oct 18, 2007
Author: John Byrne
Post Date: 2007-10-19 09:10:50 by nolu_chan
Keywords: None
Views: 166
Comments: 14

Senate caves to Bush on telecom immunity
10/18/2007 @ 8:04 am
Filed by John Byrne

Despite an intense lobbying effort from privacy groups, the Senate sealed an expected deal this week with President Bush to grant major telecommunications companies -- including Verizon, Comcast and AT&T -- immunity from prosecution for their role in the President's warrantless eavesdropping program if they can "demonstrate to a court that they acted pursuant to a legal directive in helping the government with surveillance in the United States."

The legislation finalizes the deal between Senate Democrats and the Administration over the terms of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance. It was first reported in the Washington Post.

Earlier, Bush had pushed for immunity to be included in a six-month update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but Democrats managed to strip that provision from the bill. He said he'd refuse to sign a bill that doesn't spare prosecution for the telecommunications industry.

News reports have fingered phone companies AT&T and Verizon as major players. Both firms are entangled in several class action lawsuits for handling over millions of customer files. Verizon recently admitted that it had honored requests for information at least 720 times without a court order.

Qwest, another telecommunications firm, allegedly stood up to the Administration and refused to participate, citing doubts about the program's legality.

Republicans who support telecom immunity say that companies were doing the nation good.

"They deserve our thanks, they don't deserve to be hit with a flurry of frivolous lawsuits," House Judiciary Committee ranking Republican Lamar Smith (R-TX) told Dow Jones.

Both the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have argued in legal briefs that the companies broke the law by participating in an illegal program.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

#1. To: nolu_chan (#0)

Republicans who support telecom immunity say that companies were doing the nation good.

Fascist policies being etched in stone.

"The mighty are only mighty because we are on our knees. Let us rise!" --Camille Desmoulins

noone222  posted on  2007-10-19   9:14:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

the Senate sealed an expected deal this week with President Bush to grant major telecommunications companies -- including Verizon, Comcast and AT&T -- immunity from prosecution

The Constitution protects certain inalienable rights except when the President authorizes certain people to unlawfully violate said inalienable rights and the Congress passes legislation to retroactively grant immunity to those agents of the government who committed the violation of said inalienable rights, stripping the individual of any legal recourse.

We are merely revisiting the bullcrap legislation of the Civil War era where the Constitution was trampled upon.

Something similar was done during the Lincoln administration in 1863. The legislation went all the way through Congress being referred to in the record as the "Indemnity Act." It was, in fact, an Immunity Act, but was more decorously renamed the "Habeas Corpus Act." Its text declared it to be, "An act relating to habeas corpus, and regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases."

Section 4 of the 1863 Act provided, "Sec 4. And be it further enacted, That any order of the President, or under his authority, made at any time during the existence of the present rebellion, shall be a defense in all courts to any action or prosecution, civil or criminal, pending or to be commenced, for any search, seizure, arrest, or imprisonment, made, done, or committed, or acts omitted to be done, under and by virtue of such order, or under color of any law of Congress; and such defense may be made by special plea, or under the general issue."

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ll/llcg/063/0500/05251435.gif

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ll/llcg/063/0500/05251436.gif

-----

The 1863 act was amended in 1866 because State courts had interpreted its language to require an order of the President himself to be produced in court to claim applicability of the Act. Despite what the law had stated, during the war orders were simply issued by all nature of subordinate officials and acted upon in violation of the Constitution. The amendment covered just about everything and anything.

-----

1866 AMENDMENT TO INDEMNITY ACT OF 1863

Amended 1866 U.S. Stat. at Large, XIV, 46, sec 1.

http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/014/0000/00780046.gif

http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/014/0000/00790047.gif

http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/014/0000/00780046.tif

http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/014/0000/00790047.tif

THIRTY-NINTH CONGEESS. Sess. I. Ch. 80. 1866.

CHAP. LXXX. - An Act to amend an Act entitled "An Act relating to Habeas Corpus, and regulating Judicial Proceedings in certain Cases," approved March third, eighteen hundred and sixty-three.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any search, seizure, arrest, or imprisonment made, or any acts done or omitted to be done during the said rebellion, by any officer or person, under and by virtue of any order, written or verbal, general or special, issued by the President or Secretary of War, or by any military officer of the United States holding the command of the department, district, or place within which such seizure, search, arrest, or imprisonment was made, done, or committed, or any acts were so done, or omitted to be done, either by the person or officer to whom the order was addressed, or for whom it was intended, or by any other person aiding or assisting him therein, shall be held, and are hereby declared, to come within the purview of the act to which this is amendatory, and within the purview of the fourth, fifth, and sixth sections of the said act of March third, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, for all the purposes of defence, transfer, appeal, error, or limitation provided therein. But no such order shall, by force of this act, or the act to which this is an amendment, be a defence to any suit or action for any act done or omitted to be done after the passage of this act.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That when the said order is in writing, it shall be sufficient to produce in evidence the original, with proof of its authenticity, or a certified copy of the same; or if sent by telegraph, the production of the telegram purporting to emanate from such military officer shall be prima facie evidence of its authenticity; or if the original of such order or telegram is lost or cannot be produced, secondary evidence thereof shall be admissible, as in other cases.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the right of removal from the State court into the circuit court of the United States, provided in the fifth section of the act to which this is amendatory, may be exercised after the appearance of the defendant and the filing of his plea or other defence in said court, or at any term of said court subsequent to the term when the appearance is entered, and before a jury is empannelled to try the same; but nothing herein contained shall be held to abridge the right of such removal after final judgment in the State court, nor shall it be necessary in the State court to offer or give surety for the filing of copies in the circuit court of the United States; but, on the filing of the petition, verified as provided in said fifth section, the further proceedings in the State court shall cease, and not be resumed until a certificate under the seal of the circuit court of the United States, stating that the petitioner has failed to file copies in the said circuit court, at the next term, is produced.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That if the State court shall, notwithstanding the performance of all things required for the removal of the case to the circuit court aforesaid, proceed further in said cause or prosecution before said certificate is produced, then, in that case, all such further proceedings shall be void and of none effect; and all parties, judges, officers, and other persons, thenceforth proceeding thereunder, or by color thereof, shall be liable in damages therefor to the party aggrieved, to be recovered by action in a court of the State having proper jurisdiction, or in a circuit court of the United States for the district in which such further proceedings may have been had, or where the party, officer, or other person, so offending, shall be found; and upon a recovery of damages in either court, the party plaintiff shall be entitled to double costs.

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the clerk of the State court to furnish copies of the papers and files in the case to the party so petitioning for the removal; and upon the refusal or neglect of the clerk to furnish such copies, the said party may docket the

THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS. Sess. I. Ch. 80,81. 1866. 47

case in the circuit court of the United States; and thereupon said circuit court shall have jurisdiction therein, and may, upon proof of such refusal or neglect of the clerk of the State court, and upon reasonable notice being given to the plaintiff, require him to file a declaration or petition therein; and upon his default may order a nonsuit, and dismiss the case at the costs of the plaintiff, which dismissal shall be a bar to any further declaration, &c. suit touching the matter in controversy.

Approved, May 11, 1866.

nolu_chan  posted on  2007-10-19   9:15:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Fascist policies being etched in stone.

Yeah, the Executive and anyone who acts on its behalf being given immunity for violating the Constitutional rights of others... what a concept.

nolu_chan  posted on  2007-10-19   9:25:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Looks like the corporate bosses of both parties have laid down the law.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2007-10-19   9:33:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I wonder if the USSC could consider the granting of such immunity as unconstitutional.

Pinguinite.com EcuadorTreasures.ec

Pinguinite  posted on  2007-10-19   9:43:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Last night I was on the phone with a friend of mine. We were chatting about his kids, and what not. He mentioned the words Al-Quaida.

Within 10 seconds, my cable modem re-authorized, and I had dropped the phone call. After about a minute and a half of dead silence, and no dialtone, it came back to life.

We had no outtages according to the assholes we buy cable from.

What does this mean? Coincedence? Who the fuck knows. What I do know is that it happens with great frequency when I'm on the phone and if the topic turns to politics, my phone acts up periodically. Whomever I talk to, will suddenly be unable to hear me, and I will be unable to hear them.

This tells me something as well. Cable phone systems are a new technology and there's some bugs in the system.

Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.

TommyTheMadArtist  posted on  2007-10-19   9:49:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

"demonstrate to a court that they acted pursuant to a legal directive in helping the government with surveillance in the United States."

Since the whole activity is obviously illegal and not constitutionally authorized, how can it be a legal directive?

The fact that the administration is looking for legal protection for those who help it seems to indicate that they are even admitting that what they're doing probably isn't legal.

Rivers of blood were spilled out over land that, in normal times, not even the poorest Arab would have worried his head over." Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

historian1944  posted on  2007-10-19   10:41:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Coercion is a legal defense. If the telecoms persuasively argued that they were coerced into acting illegally by the government, they might be able to escape liability.

Of course, a lot of people wouldn't want them to do that.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2007-10-19   11:08:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

When Congress returns in September the Intelligence committees and leaders in both parties will need to complete work on the comprehensive reforms requested by Director McConnell, including the important issue of providing meaningful liability protection to those who are alleged to have assisted our Nation following the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Speaking of admissions of illegality, I thought Bush's language in August was interesting.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2007-10-19   11:11:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

[pinguinite #5] I wonder if the USSC could consider the granting of such immunity as unconstitutional.

[historian #7] Since the whole activity is obviously illegal and not constitutionally authorized, how can it be a legal directive?

The nine robed political appointees on the Supreme Court can say the damdest things when the powers that be call upon them to do so.

The garbage that they approve during some time of perceived "emergency" becomes a precedent for the next tyrant.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/73/247/case.html

U.S. Supreme Court
MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF CITY OF NASHVILLE v. COOPER, 73 U.S. 247 (1867)

73 U.S. 247 (Wall.)

THE MAYOR
v.
COOPER.

December Term, 1867

ERROR to the Circuit Court for the Middle District of Tennessee; the case being thus:

The Constitution of the United States ordains, that 'the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish,' and that this power 'shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution and the laws of the United States.'

With this provision in force as fundamental, Congress, having in 1789 established Circuit Courts, inferior to the Supreme Court, passed, during the late rebellion, to wit, March 3d, 1863, 'An act in relation to habeas corpus and regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases,' and on the 11th May, 1866, another amendatory of it.

The statutes provided, in respect to all acts done or omitted to be done, 'under any law of Congress,' or 'by virtue of any order, written or verbal, general or special, issued by the President or Secretary of War, or any military officer of the United States holding command' of the place where such act or omission occurred, that such authority should be a defence in all courts for all concerned, to any civil action or criminal prosecution therefor.

And provided further for the removal, in a manner prescribed, of all such cases, before or after final judgment, from the State courts to the Circuit Courts of the United States.

Page 73 U.S. 247, 248

In this state of law, constitutional and statutory, Cooper sued the mayor and aldermen of Nashville, and with them one Smith, in the Circuit Court of Davidson County, in that State; his declaration alleging trespasses upon real estate, and the asportation and conversion of chattels. The mayor and aldermen pleaded the general issue.

Both parties defendant presented petitions verified by affidavit to the court in which the suit was pending, praying for a removal, under the statutes of 1863 and 1866 just named, of the causes to the Circuit Court of the United States for that district.

The petition of Smith set forth that the trespasses complained of, if committed, were committed during the rebellion by authority of the President of the United States, under an order issued by General G. H. Thomas, an officer of the United States, holding command of the district within which the trespasses are alleged to have occurred, which order was approved by Andrew Johnson, then an officer of the United States, and the military governor of the State of Tennessee.

That of the mayor and aldermen alleged, that at the time of the commission of the alleged trespasses their co-defendant Smith was the acting mayor of Nashville, and that he and the persons acting with him as aldermen and councilmen held their positions as mayor, aldermen, and councilmen as the appointees and agents of the government of the United States, appointed under the authority of the President of the United States, by the then military governor of Tennessee, to serve the lawful military purposes of the said President of the United States, as the commander-in-chief of the forces thereof, in suppression of the rebellion, and that all the acts complained of, if done, were done under the authority and for the benefit of the United States and the army thereof; and that the said acting mayor and aldermen, at the time when the trespasses are alleged to have been committed, had received military orders from the said military governor, under the authority of the Secretary of War of the United States, and also orders from the military officers of the United

Page 73 U.S. 247, 249

States having command of the district, to do all the things which were done, or are alleged to have been done by the defendants.

The cause was removed to the Circuit Court of the United States according to the prayer of the defendants.

A motion was made there to dismiss the suit upon the ground tha the court had no jurisdiction of the cause. No allegation, apparently, was made against the regularity in point of form of the proceedings by which the case had been removed from the State court, or that the case was not within the acts of Congress of 1863 and 1866. The motion to dismiss was sustained by the court. The court held that the defence had 'failed to show that they are entitled to have this cause removed from the Circuit Court of Davidson County, Tennessee, to this court for hearing under the provisions of the act of Congress of March 3d, 1863, and the act amendatory thereof, passed May 11th, 1866, and that the said acts of Congress, so far as they authorize and provide for the removal of causes from the State to the Federal courts in cases where the petitioner shall show that the acts complained of were done under the order of the President or Secretary of War, or of a military commander, or otherwise than under an act of Congress, are unconstitutional and void.' It was accordingly ordered and adjudged 'that said cause be dismissed and remanded to the Circuit Court of Davidson County, and that the defendants . . . pay all the costs incurred in this court, for which execution may issue.'

This writ of error was prosecuted to reverse that judgment.

Mr. R. L. Caruthers, by brief, for the plaintiff in error, contended that the matter having arisen on motion to dismiss, presented a question of jurisdiction purely; that at such a stage of the case, no question could be raised as to the validity of the defence which the statutes authorized to be set up; that even if the defence authorized was invalid and unconstitutional, still that under the provisions of the Constitution which extended the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court-an 'inferior court,' undoubtedly ordained and established by

Page 73 U.S. 247, 250

Congress-to all cases in law and equity, arising under the laws of the United States, that court was bound to entertain and in some way adjudge it; that the case should therefore be remanded.

No opposing counsel appeared; nor was any copy of the opinion of the court below contained in the record.

Mr. Justice SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.

It does not appear that any question was raised in the court below as to the regularity of the proceedings by which the case was removed from the Circuit Court of the State to the Circuit Court of the United States. Nor does it appear to have been denied that the acts of Congress referred to embraced the case, and if valid, gave the right to have the transfer made. We are therefore relieved from the necessity of considering those subjects. We have found nothing in the record, and nothing in the statutes which, as we think, authorizes a doubt or objection as to either point.

The judgment of the court proceeded entirely upon the ground of the constitutional invalidity of the provisions in the acts referred to, which relate to the subject.

We have not had an opportunity to see the opinion of the court, and no argument has been submitted to us in behalf of the defendant in error. We are therefore at a loss to imagine what train of reasoning conducted the learned judge to the conclusion announced in the order, and hence are constrained to examine the subject without reference to the particular views which controlled the decision.

Before adverting to the constitutional question, there is another feature of the order which calls for remark. The court held that it had no jurisdiction whatever of the case, and yet gave a judgment for the costs of the motion, and ordered that an execution should issue to collect them. This was clearly erroneous. If there were no jurisdiction, there was no power to do anything but to strike the case from the docket. In that view of the subject the matter was as much coram non judice as anything else could be, and the award of

Page 73 U.S. 247, 251

costs and execution was consequently void. Such was the necessary result of the conclusions of the court.

This court has the power to declare an act of Congress to be repugnant to the Constitution, and therefore invalid. But the duty is one of great delicacy, and only to be performed where the repugnancy is clear, and the conflict irreconcilable. Every doubt is to be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of the law.

The question before us relates to the 4th and 5th sections of the statute of 1863, and the 1st, 3d, 4th, and 5th sections of the statute of 1866.

They provide, in respect to the acts specified, and all acts done or omitted to be done, 'under any law of Congress,' or 'by virtue of any order, written or verbal, general or special, issued by the President or Secretary of War, or any military officer of the United States holding command' of the place where such act or omission occurred, that such authority shall be a defence in all courts for all concerned, to any civil action or criminal prosecution for the acts or omissions complained of.

They provide further for the removal, in the manner prescribed, of all such cases, before or after final judgment, from the State courts to the Circuit Courts of the United States.

The Constitution provides, that 'the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish,' and that this power 'shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution and the laws of the United States.' The other particulars of the grant of power it is not necessary in this case to consider.

The power here under consideration is given in general terms. No limitation is imposed. The broadest language is used. 'All cases' so arising are embraced. None are excluded. How jurisdiction shall be acquired by the inferior courts, whether it shall be original or appellate, or original in part and appellate in part, and the manner of procedure

Page 73 U.S. 247, 252

in its exercise after it has been acquired, are not prescribed. The Constitution is silent upon those subjects. They are remitted without check or limitation to the wisdom of the legislature.

The sixth article declares that 'the Constitution and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof,' . . . 'shall be the supreme law of the land.' The grant of the judicial power contains no such qualification. It is declared to extend 'to all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States,' without distinction or discrimination as to the latter; nor is there any restriction as to the tribunals-State or Federal-in which they may arise. Wherever found, they are within the reach of this authority, and subject, for its exercise, to the law-making power of the nation.

As regards all courts of the United States inferior to this tribunal, two things are necessary to create jurisdiction, whether original or appellate. The Constitution must have given to the court the capacity to take it, and an act of Congress must have supplied it. Their concurrence is necessary to vest it. It is the duty of Congress to act for that purpose up to the limits of the granted power. They may fall short of it, but cannot exceed it. To the extent that such action is not taken, the power lies dormant. It can be brought into activity in no other way. Jurisdiction, original or appellate, alike comprehensive in either case, may be given. The constitutional boundary line of both is the same. Every variety and form of appellate jurisdiction within the sphere of the power, extending as well to the courts of the States as to those of the nation, is permitted. There is no distinction in this respect between civil and criminal causes. Both are within its scope. Nor is it any objection that questions are involved which are not all of a Federal character. If one of the latter exist, if there be a single such ingredient in the mass, it is sufficient. That element is decisive upon the subject of jurisdiction. 'A case in law or equity consists of the right of the one party as well as the other, and may be truly said to arise under the Constitution or a law of the

Page 73 U.S. 247, 253

United States whenever its correct decision depends upon the right construction of either.'

The rule applies with equal force where the plaintiff claims a right, and where the defendant claims protection, by virtue of one or the other. [Footnote 1]

It is the right and the duty of the national government to have its Constitution and laws interpreted and applied by its own judicial tribunals. In cases arising under them, properly brought before it, this court is the final arbiter. The decisions of the courts of the United States within their sphere of action, are as conclusive as the laws of Congress made in pursuance of the Constitution. This is essential to the peace of the nation, and to the vigor and efficiency of the government. A different principle would lead to the most mischievous consequences. The courts of the several States might determine the same questions in different ways. There would be no uniformity of decisions. For every act of an officer, civil or military, of the United States, including alike the highest and the lowest, done under their authority, he would be liable to harassing litigation in the State courts. However regular his conduct, neither the Constitution nor laws of the United States could avail him, if the views of those tribunals and of the juries which sit in them, should be adverse. The authority which he had served and obeyed would be impotent to protect him. Such a government would be one of pitiable weakness, and would wholly fail to meet the ends which the framers of the Constitution had in view. They designed to make a government not only independent and self-sustained, but supreme in every function within the scope of its authority. The judgments of this court have uniformly held that it is so. [2]

The jurisdiction here in question involves the same principle, and rests upon the same foundation with that conferred by the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Page 73 U.S. 247, 254

The constitutionality of that provision has been uniformly sustained by the unanimous judgment of this court whenever the subject has been presented for adjudication. The twelfth section of the act of 1789, and the third section of the act of the 2d March, 1833, relating to revenue officers, present the same question. We are not aware that a doubt as to the validity of either has ever been expressed by any Federal court. The acquiescence is now universal.

The fourth and fifth sections of the act of 1863, are copied largely from the eighth section of the act of February 4th, 1815 [3]. That act expired by its own limitation at the close of the then existing war. The section referred to, was continued in force for one year in the sixth section of the act of March 3d, 1815. [4] See also the third section of the act of March 3d, 1817. [5]

We entertain no doubt of the constitutionality of the jurisdiction given by the acts under which this case has arisen.

The validity of the defence authorized to be made is a distinct subject. It involves wholly different inquiries. We have not had occasion to consider it. It has no connection whatever with the question of jurisdiction.

The order of the court below is REVERSED. An order will be remitted that the cause be REINSTATED, and that the court proceed in it according to law. Footnotes

Footnote 1 Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheaton, 314; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Id. 264; Osborn v. The Bank of the United States, 9 Id. 821.

Footnote 2 United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch, 115; Ableman v. Booth et al., 21 Howard, 506; Freeman v. Howe, 24 Id. 450.

Footnote 3 3 Stat. at Large, 198.

Footnote 4 Id. 233.

Footnote 5 Id. 396.

==============

See also:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/110/633/case.html

U.S. Supreme Court MITCHELL v. CLARK, 110 U.S. 633 (1884)

nolu_chan  posted on  2007-10-19   11:20:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The fact that the administration is looking for legal protection for those who help it seems to indicate that they are even admitting that what they're doing probably isn't legal.

They know for a certainty that what they have been doing is not legal.

They have committed serial rape of the Constitution and laws, from illegal wiretapping to illegal imprisonment to torture to extraordinary rendition.

Congress and the courts can do little without admitting that, for years, they turned a blind eye to it all and were complicit, either by their actions or inactions.

nolu_chan  posted on  2007-10-19   11:29:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Coercion is a legal defense. If the telecoms persuasively argued that they were coerced into acting illegally by the government, they might be able to escape liability.

They might have a difficult time claiming coercion while proceeding without demanding a valid warrant.

Also, they would have to allege that somebody coerced them. It would have to be somebody with a great deal of power. With that much power at play, they can get immunity and be rewarded with government contracts to do what is asked of them.

nolu_chan  posted on  2007-10-19   11:36:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡

ghostdogtxn  posted on  2007-10-19   13:18:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Immunity, in the past has been conditional and normally didn't attach under criminal circumstances.

The immunity being imposed here is what determines another class of citizenship.

"The mighty are only mighty because we are on our knees. Let us rise!" --Camille Desmoulins

noone222  posted on  2007-10-21   4:32:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]