"Strict Construction" of Constitution" Applied to Wiretapping

Absolute Zero · February 6th, 2006, 02:00 PM

Anybody else find it highly hypocritical for Bush and his followers to declare the President has "inherent" authority as Commander in Chief to wiretap Americans without a warrant? Aren't these the same folks that say that the Constitution must be strictly construed per what is precisely written and not expanded by the "activists" on the Court?

And yet the U.S. Constitution does not grant the President any specific wiretapping powers, but he is now claiming the authority to do so nonetheless! What a bunch of @#$%!

Kolo · February 6th, 2006, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absolute Zero

And yet the U.S. Constitution does not grant the President any specific wiretapping powers, but he is now claiming the authority to do so nonetheless! What a bunch of @#$%!

Maybe the Redcoats weren't communicating much by telephone back in those days.

Absolute Zero · February 6th, 2006, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kolobotomy

Maybe the Redcoats weren't communicating much by telephone back in those days.

What's that got to do with it? Either the Constitution gives him the power by its own words or it doesn't. A strict constructionist wouldn't add powers that are not specifiied in the Constitution, unless of course he was blinded by politics.

Chaz · February 6th, 2006, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absolute Zero

What's that got to do with it? Either the Constitution gives him the power by its own words or it doesn't. A strict constructionist wouldn't add powers that are not specifiied in the Constitution, unless of course he was blinded by politics.

It is funny because that is the argument liberals use against the "strict constitutionalists".

That somehow the technology changes everything. i.e. the 2nd amendment allows you to only own a musket.

BTW most of the libertarian constitutionalists that I know of are very upset about the wiretapping thing.

Kolo · February 6th, 2006, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absolute Zero

What's that got to do with it? Either the Constitution gives him the power by its own words or it doesn't. A strict constructionist wouldn't add powers that are not specifiied in the Constitution, unless of course he was blinded by politics.

Actually, it is in there, right after the clause guaranteeing women the right to have abortions.

EDIT:
Zero, think about it--there's nothing in the Constitution permitting the Supreme Court the right to review acts of Congress, nothing about public education, nothing about Medicare or Medicaid, etc... To say it had to be spelled out in the Constitution specifically or it cannot be done is to grossly misunderstand what purpose the founders intended for the Constitution to be. No Miranda warning, nothing saying you cannot torture prisoners of war, nothing saying the feds can regulate speed limits on highways, etc... Bag on W all you want (he deserves some of what he gets), but this just doesn't follow logically.

KloD · February 6th, 2006, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absolute Zero

Anybody else find it highly hypocritical for Bush and his followers to declare the President has "inherent" authority as Commander in Chief to wiretap Americans without a warrant? Aren't these the same folks that say that the Constitution must be strictly construed per what is precisely written and not expanded by the "activists" on the Court?

And yet the U.S. Constitution does not grant the President any specific wiretapping powers, but he is now claiming the authority to do so nonetheless! What a bunch of @#$%!

Yes, It was my response to Dj in another thread last week here.

Absolute Zero · February 6th, 2006, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KloD

Yes, It was my response to Dj in another thread last week here.

Sweet!

Absolute Zero · February 6th, 2006, 08:47 PM

strict construction
(narrow construction) n. interpreting the Constitution based on a literal and narrow definition of the language without reference to the differences in conditions when the Constitution was written and modern conditions, inventions and societal changes. By contrast "broad construction" looks to what someone thinks was the "intent" of the framers' language and expands and interprets the language extensively to meet current standards of human conduct and complexity of society.

Absolute Zero · February 6th, 2006, 08:51 PM

President Bush consistently praises Strict Construction, but never really explains what it means. The fullest expression of his views came during the 2000 presidential campaign. Bush said that if elected President he would appoint as Federal judges, “people … who have shared the judicial temperament that is necessary I think to adhere to our philosophy which is a strict construction of the Constitution, that the Constitution needs to be strictly interpreted and people should not use the bench from which to legislate.”
http://www.acsblog.org/guest-blogger...struction.html

Chaz · February 7th, 2006, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absolute Zero

strict construction
(narrow construction) n. interpreting the Constitution based on a literal and narrow definition of the language without reference to the differences in conditions when the Constitution was written and modern conditions, inventions and societal changes. By contrast "broad construction" looks to what someone thinks was the "intent" of the framers' language and expands and interprets the language extensively to meet current standards of human conduct and complexity of society.

I disagree with this.
The "strict construction" looks at the language and intent of the framers as it was written.

A more broad interpretation will add things to the constitution based on moden circumstances and interpretations.

A strict interpretation is not opposed to adding to the constitution but it would require a constitutional amendment.