I came across this and found it interesting how someone can just have a sudden change of heart and realization of what powers he has on a whim and not inform the rest of us of said epiphany.

 

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20040420-2.html

I love how basically every American only values the parts of the Constitution that suit them - GWB included.

Yeah, there's a videotape of him saying that which has been going around recently.

It was a secret program so he is guilty of "keeping a secret," something most U.S. Presidents do, (which is to lie about a Federal secret program's existence).

 

IMO It is the President's U.S. Constitutional right to authorize a search by Amendment IV........

The warrant that was issued was the authorization by President Bush, this amendment IV does not specify a Judge's warrant being issued.

 

Amendment IV

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

 

Definition of "Warrant."

 

Main Entry: 1 war?rant

Pronunciation: 'wor-&nt, 'w?r-

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, protector, warrant, from Old North French warant, modification of a Germanic noun represented by Old High German werEnto guarantor, from present participle of werEn to warrant; akin to Old High German wAra trust, care -- more at VERY

1 a (1) : SANCTION, AUTHORIZATION; also : evidence for or token of authorization (2) : GUARANTEE, SECURITY b (1) : GROUND, JUSTIFICATION (2) : CONFIRMATION, PROOF

2 a : a commission or document giving authority to do something; especially : a writing that authorizes a person to pay or deliver to another and the other to receive money or other consideration b : a precept or writ issued by a competent magistrate authorizing an officer to make an arrest, a seizure, or a search or to do other acts incident to the administration of justice c : an official certificate of appointment issued to an officer of lower rank than a commissioned officer d (1) : a short-term obligation of a governmental body (as a municipality) issued in anticipation of revenue (2) : an instrument issued by a corporation giving to the holder the right to purchase the capital stock of the corporation at a stated price either prior to a stipulated date or at any future time

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Primary meaning of warrant is:

1 a (1) : SANCTION, AUTHORIZATION; also : evidence for or token of authorization

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The police cannot pull you over without a warrant, the police have prior authorization(s) ie. warrant to make arrests or give tickets. I believe you are confusing a Judge's warrant called a "Judicial order" with an ordinary warrant or don't know the meaning of warrant. I have seen first hand the operation(s) of detainments, searches, seizures and arrests without a Judge's orders.

List of U.S. Supreme Court cases that list exceptions to Amendment IV:

http://www.iejs.com/Law/Procedural_Law/Fou..._Exceptions.htm

(Yes, there are authorized exceptions to Amendment IV, already).

 

Don't under-estimate the warrant power of the chief executive, look at FDR's executive order to detain the Japanese, etc. during WWII. It was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://www.bookrags.com/history/americanhi...-war-ii-aaw-03/

The Japanese in the U.S., were searched, detained and property confiscated without a Judge's order.

 

The federal government"]Executive Order 9066 provided the initial authority for the roundup and internment of approximately 120,000 Japanese Americans, including those who were American citizens. Congress later passed legislation to enforce the order.[/b]

 

The President's executive order 9066 provided the initial authority (warrant) and Congress later passed legislation to enforce the order. If a Judge's court order were required for all police actions, it would curtail police effectiveness in the U.S.

So local police use the authority vested in them by local, state and federal legislation and orders as warrants. It is visible everyday.

 

I ask this why would Congress pass legislation that an court order would be required for wiretaps if it was redundant to the law of the U.S. Constitution?

Because it is not redundant or clearly established in the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S Congress can not limit the U.S. President's rights to execute the powers of the office under the U.S. Constitution.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Related story:

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

December 20, 2005, 9:46 a.m.

Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches

Does anyone remember that?

By Byron York

 

In a little-remembered debate from 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has "inherent authority" to order physical searches ? including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens ? for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body. Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own.

 

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."

 

"It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."

 

Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."

 

Reporting the day after Gorelick's testimony, the Washington Post's headline ? on page A-19 ? read, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches." The story began, "The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S. spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order. The administration's quiet lobbying effort is aimed at modifying draft legislation that would require U.S. counterintelligence officials to get a court order before secretly snooping inside the homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers."

 

In her testimony, Gorelick made clear that the president believed he had the power to order warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering intelligence, even if there was no reason to believe that the search might uncover evidence of a crime. "Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise," Gorelick said. "Information gathering for policy making and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus."

 

The debate over warrantless searches came up after the case of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Authorities had searched Ames's house without a warrant, and the Justice Department feared that Ames's lawyers would challenge the search in court. Meanwhile, Congress began discussing a measure under which the authorization for break-ins would be handled like the authorization for wiretaps, that is, by the FISA court. In her testimony, Gorelick signaled that the administration would go along a congressional decision to place such searches under the court ? if, as she testified, it "does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security." In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court, but the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

I agree with then President Clinton.............though I would not call it "warrant-less."

I really don't see special protection(s) in this amendment IV.

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

According to Findlaw.com the U.S. Supreme has already reveiwed this issue of whom can issue warrants.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constit...dment04/02.html

 

Issuance by Neutral Magistrate .--In numerous cases"]These cases do not mean that only a judge or an official who is a lawyer may issue warrants, but they do stand for two tests of the validity of the power of the issuing party to so act. ''He must be neutral and detached, and he must be capable of determining whether probable cause exists for the requested arrest or search.'' 91 The first test cannot be met when the issuing party is himself engaged in law enforcement activities, 92 but the Court has not required that an issuing party have that independence of tenure and guarantee of salary which characterizes federal judges. 93 And in passing on the second test, the Court has been essentially pragmatic in assessing whether the issuing party possesses the capacity to determine probable cause. 94 [/b]

 

 

Further I blame the news media for ignoring the meaning of the word "warrant," it's wide spread practice and not spreading the correct meaning of the U.S. Constitution to the public.

The U.S. Congress can and does also issue "warrants" for questioning, detainments, etc. in Federal hearings and they are not a Judicial body but a legislative body.

 

Just my 2 cents worth......................

As far as I'm concerned, just because he has the power to do something, doesn't mean he should. The example you use of FDR's imprisonment of all those Japanese-Americans was probably legal under his wartime powers, but it certainly wasn't the right thing to do.

 

It's hard to say if Bush even has the real authority to do this, because this "War on Terror" is so vague, and is something that really can never end.

 

I've been opposed to the Congressional approval of giving the president nearly unlimited war powers after 9/11, because they were just asking for that power to get abused at some point, either by the President himself, or by someone within the executive branch.

No offense superangels, but thats an unbelievably incorrect and logically flawed legal analysis. It is late now, but Ill address all the incorrect points first chance I get.

Hmm....Yet I believe until you post some back up for your comments that you are taking a cheap shot.

 

I found a link that supports my interpetation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_warrant

 

Arrest warrant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

An arrest warrant is a warrant issued by a public officer which authorizes the arrest and detention of an individual.

 

Contents

1 Arrest warrants in the United States

 

Arrest warrants in the United States

Warrants are typically issued by courts but can also be issued by houses of Congress or other legislatures (via the call of the house motion) and other political entities.

 

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Note that Wikipedia is making the same general statements as I.

Warrants are typically issued by courts but can also be issued by houses of Congress or other legislatures (via the call of the house motion) and other political entities.

SuperAngels, I am in my last year of law school and you are wrong about the President being able to give himself a warrant. That's like the police giving themselves a warrant. You can't do that. A magistrate is an officer of the court. Established Supreme Court precedent says you're wrong.

 

By the way, the legislative or Congressional warrants you speak of are related to Congressional investigations.

 

I just realized that F_M addressed what you wrote. He's absolutely right. Even though it is easy, you can't cite Wilkepedia in legal disputes. That won't hold any water with lawyers and judges. Sorry.

SuperAngels, I am an attorney and you are wrong about the President being able to give himself a warrant. That's like the police giving themselves a warrant. You can't do that. A magistrate is an officer of the court. Established Supreme Court precedent says you're wrong.

 

By the way, the legislative or Congressional warrants you speak of are related to Congressional investigations.

 

 

Still No basis for your opinions.

I stated Supreme Court review of whom can issue warrants with links.

You must live in Canada where that is the case, (that a Judge's warrant is required). LOL

And what happened in the Japanese detainment situation?

And why has there not been a "impeachment" of President GW Bush started?

And why can police arrest someone without a Judge's warrant? (I showed the links to US Supreme Court cases which give the police that power in some circumstances).

 

Because you are wrong............

SuperAngels, I am an attorney and you are wrong about the President being able to give himself a warrant. That's like the police giving themselves a warrant. You can't do that. A magistrate is an officer of the court. Established Supreme Court precedent says you're wrong.

 

By the way, the legislative or Congressional warrants you speak of are related to Congressional investigations.

 

 

Still No basis for your opinions.

I stated Supreme Court review of whom can issue warrants with links.

You must live in Canada where that is the case. LOL

And what happened in the Japanese detainment situation?

And why has there not been a "impeachment" of President GW Bush started?

 

Because you are wrong............

 

I want to see something more concrete evidence. Give me some actual case law. I don't have time to sit here and go through all these links. I have class today.

 

Also, the Japanese detainment has not technically been overturned, but in practice it has. It is not good law anymore. We now apply a strict scrutiny standard to cases like that. It is very difficult for the government to overcome such a standard. Why do you bring up the Japanese detainment at all?

 

Also, the question in this case is whether or not the President has violated a federal law (FSA).

I want to see something more concrete evidence. Give me some actual case law. I don't have time to sit here and go through all these links. I have class today.

 

Also, the Japanese detainment has not technically been overturned, but in practice it has. It is not good law anymore. We now apply a strict scrutiny standard to cases like that. It is very difficult for the government to overcome such a standard. Why do you bring up the Japanese detainment at all?

 

Also, the question in this case is whether or not the President has violated a federal law (FSA).

 

 

I also don't have time at moment but I will do more research later......

It's pretty simple why there hasn't been an impeachment of the President: his own party controls both houses of Congress.

 

When Clinton was impeached, it was the opposite situation. It wouldn't have happened if Dems had controlled Congress.

Ok superangels, I?m not sure what your actual argument is but I?m going to try to respond to it as it is organized and as I perceive it.

 

First you suggest that the president has the constitutional right to issue a search via the 4th amendment. This statement is wrong on it?s face. The 4th amendment does not grant a right to issue a warrant. It protects all in the US against unreasonable searches and seizures and no warrants can be issued that allow a search except where there is probable cause.

 

You then state that the warrant was issued by Bush and that it doesn?t say that a judge has to issue a warrant. You then go through the definition of the word warrant and state that police don?t need judicial orders, ie a form of warrant, to engage in searches and seizures because the police have some formative pre-authorized warrant.

 

You then state that the president has warrant power as seen via the Japanese internment camps.

 

The Clinton article is something I will address, but you then go back to the definition of warrant and who can issue a warrant.

 

1. First and foremost, to dismiss the argument that the police can issue a warrant and don?t need judges, go back to the findlaw article you posted.

 

''The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.

 

This very statement destroys that argument. The police are clearly not a disinterested party. They are clearly an officer who is engaged in the competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.

 

The first test cannot be met when the issuing party is himself engaged in law enforcement activities,

?

 

So it is pretty clear that law enforcement cannot issue a warrant. The police must show probably cause to a detached entity.

 

2. Second, to dismiss the argument that the definition of the term warrant does not always include the requirement of judicial order. This is a very strange argument and I?m not sure what the relevancy is. But it is pretty clear that the 4th amendment requires a warrant to engage in a reasonable search subject to exceptions. Like you said, a warrant is a sanction or authorization. The 4th amendment protects us against a unreasonable search and seizure and protects us from reasonable searches and seizures except where a court allows that search to happen. The court is giving the sanction. From the findlaw article:

 

authorizes invasion of that privacy only upon a showing that constitutes probable cause, and limits that invasion by specification of the person to be seized, the place to be searched, and the evidence to be sought

 

 

Your own definition states that:

 

a precept or writ issued by a competent magistrate authorizing an officer to make an arrest, a seizure, or a search or to do other acts incident to the administration of justice

 

The substance of the 4th amendment is pretty clear. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

 

The search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment are all about privacy. To honor this freedom, the Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures by state or federal law enforcement authorities.

 

 

The flip side is that the Fourth Amendment does permit searches and seizures that are considered reasonable. In practice, this means that the police may override your privacy concerns and conduct a search of your home, barn, car, boat, office, personal or business documents, bank account records, trash barrel, or whatever, if the police have probable cause to believe they can find evidence that you committed a crime, and a judge issues a search warrant

 

 

 

 

And yes, there are exceptions. But they are clear and distinct. And you have not pointed to a single exception that authorized the presidents actions.

 

 

This right to be free extends to the entire government. So the president of the United States is clearly subject to the 4th amendment. So therein lies why you?re analysis of the 4th amendment is totally wrong and does not follow from the evidence you provided.

 

3. The debate regarding what Clinton wanted to do was whether or not the 4th amendment did not apply to foreign intelligence searches and hence warrants are not required. Hence whether the president could authorize the NSA to do this and not worry about the 4th amendment. But it still dealt with issues surrounding the 4th amendment and it?s application. Engaging in definitional games does not change that.

 

Now if your argument is that the president has the authority to grant the NSA the power to override the 4th amendment and engage in searches without court order, this is a different issue. First and foremost, the president does not have this authority. Your own Clinton article points that out:

 

a. That what Clinton wanted to do was engage in a warrantless search, as described above:

 

The debate over warrantless searches came up after the case of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Authorities had searched Ames's house without a warrant, and the Justice Department feared that Ames's lawyers would challenge the search in court.

 

So to claim that the definition of warrant means that this isn?t a 4th amendment issue is totally wrong.

 

b. That congress, unlike with FDR, debated this issue and denied this unfettered authority under FISA.

 

the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court

 

." In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court

 

So it is pretty clear that Bush, by ignoring congressional authority via FISA, violated the law and separation of powers. This debate was already settled. Arguing that Bush should be able to do it does not mean he can do it.

 

Your argument regarding the Japanese internment camps incorrect because those actions were 1. authorized by congress, 2. occurred during wartime and 3. are unconsidered horrible decisions and actions that we have paid reparations for and no longer truly recognize, or won?t recognize, as valid law.

 

So nothing in the 4th amendment, nothing in the Clinton debate, nothing in the internment camps, and nothing in the definition of warrant allows the conclusion that Bush has the authority to grant carte blanche searches for the NSA.

'bout time F_M.

:mischief

F_M, nice job. I can't believe you put this much time into responding to his posts. I don't usually do it because it's just not worth it. Good to see there are people with the patience to do it, though. :thumbup

Ok superangels, Im not sure what your actual argument is but Im going to try to respond to it as it is organized and as I perceive it.

 

First you suggest that the president has the constitutional right to issue a search via the 4th amendment. This statement is wrong on its face. The 4th amendment does not grant a right to issue a warrant. It protects all in the US against unreasonable searches and seizures and no warrants can be issued that allow a search except where there is probable cause.

 

You then state that the warrant was issued by Bush and that it doesnt say that a judge has to issue a warrant. You then go through the definition of the word warrant and state that police dont need judicial orders, ie a form of warrant, to engage in searches and seizures because the police have some formative pre-authorized warrant.

 

You then state that the president has warrant power as seen via the Japanese internment camps.

 

The Clinton article is something I will address, but you then go back to the definition of warrant and who can issue a warrant.

 

1. First and foremost, to dismiss the argument that the police can issue a warrant and dont need judges, go back to the findlaw article you posted.

 

''The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.

 

This very statement destroys that argument. The police are clearly not a disinterested party. They are clearly an officer who is engaged in the competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.

 

The first test cannot be met when the issuing party is himself engaged in law enforcement activities,

 

So it is pretty clear that law enforcement cannot issue a warrant. The police must show probably cause to a detached entity.

 

2. Second, to dismiss the argument that the definition of the term warrant does not always include the requirement of judicial order. This is a very strange argument and Im not sure what the relevancy is. But it is pretty clear that the 4th amendment requires a warrant to engage in a reasonable search subject to exceptions. Like you said, a warrant is a sanction or authorization. The 4th amendment protects us against a unreasonable search and seizure and protects us from reasonable searches and seizures except where a court allows that search to happen. The court is giving the sanction. From the findlaw article:

 

authorizes invasion of that privacy only upon a showing that constitutes probable cause, and limits that invasion by specification of the person to be seized, the place to be searched, and the evidence to be sought

 

 

Your own definition states that:

 

a precept or writ issued by a competent magistrate authorizing an officer to make an arrest, a seizure, or a search or to do other acts incident to the administration of justice

 

The substance of the 4th amendment is pretty clear. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

 

The search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment are all about privacy. To honor this freedom, the Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures by state or federal law enforcement authorities.

 

 

The flip side is that the Fourth Amendment does permit searches and seizures that are considered reasonable. In practice, this means that the police may override your privacy concerns and conduct a search of your home, barn, car, boat, office, personal or business documents, bank account records, trash barrel, or whatever, if the police have probable cause to believe they can find evidence that you committed a crime, and a judge issues a search warrant

 

 

 

 

And yes, there are exceptions. But they are clear and distinct. And you have not pointed to a single exception that authorized the presidents actions.

 

 

This right to be free extends to the entire government. So the president of the United States is clearly subject to the 4th amendment. So therein lies why youre analysis of the 4th amendment is totally wrong and does not follow from the evidence you provided.

 

3. The debate regarding what Clinton wanted to do was whether or not the 4th amendment did not apply to foreign intelligence searches and hence warrants are not required. Hence whether the president could authorize the NSA to do this and not worry about the 4th amendment. But it still dealt with issues surrounding the 4th amendment and its application. Engaging in definitional games does not change that.

 

Now if your argument is that the president has the authority to grant the NSA the power to override the 4th amendment and engage in searches without court order, this is a different issue. First and foremost, the president does not have this authority. Your own Clinton article points that out:

 

a. That what Clinton wanted to do was engage in a warrantless search, as described above:

 

The debate over warrantless searches came up after the case of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Authorities had searched Ames's house without a warrant, and the Justice Department feared that Ames's lawyers would challenge the search in court.

 

So to claim that the definition of warrant means that this isnt a 4th amendment issue is totally wrong.

 

b. That congress, unlike with FDR, debated this issue and denied this unfettered authority under FISA.

 

the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court

 

." In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court

 

So it is pretty clear that Bush, by ignoring congressional authority via FISA, violated the law and separation of powers. This debate was already settled. Arguing that Bush should be able to do it does not mean he can do it.

 

Your argument regarding the Japanese internment camps incorrect because those actions were 1. authorized by congress, 2. occurred during wartime and 3. are unconsidered horrible decisions and actions that we have paid reparations for and no longer truly recognize, or wont recognize, as valid law.

 

So nothing in the 4th amendment, nothing in the Clinton debate, nothing in the internment camps, and nothing in the definition of warrant allows the conclusion that Bush has the authority to grant carte blanche searches for the NSA.

 

 

First I never said, "The police can issue warrants." I stated that US Supreme Court has ruled that there are exceptions to Amendment IV and I listed a link to US Supreme Court cases. Those cases basically state that if a police officer witnesses a crime, no search or arrest warrant is required. The police officer has prior authorization, (ie. warrant), by these US Supreme Court rulings and local police procedures legislated laws and rules. If you don't believe me, just ask the police for a Judge's warrant next time you get a traffic ticket. LOL

 

Second I mentioned the Japanese internment camps because it is an easy example of the US President's executive power to search, detain and confiscate property of US residents and citizens. I'm sure there are many more examples but unfortunately much of what a President does is kept secret from the public. (This NSA wiretap situation would never have been known by the public if not for a "leak" in the government). I don't argue the Japanese internment camps were a terrible situation and a misuse of power. I agree.........they were.

 

Everybody has a opinion, so you got one too.

But the facts are until GW Bush is impeach convicted of violating the laws of the US Constitution, I'm correct. President GW Bush has the executive right to authorize and order searches ie. wiretaps......

But the facts are until GW Bush is impeach convicted of violating the laws of the US Constitution, I'm correct.

 

Wow you really got him there. :thumbup

:plain

The fact that he doesn't get impeached doesn't mean he didn't break the law. Even if he did break the law or the Constitution, it may not be an impeachable offense. If his interpretation of the law is wrong he broke the law by authorizing unlawful actions, but it is not a "high crime or misdemeanor." Executive orders are found to be in violation of the Constitution or federal laws all the time and the president doesn't face impeachment.

The fact that he doesn't get impeached doesn't mean he didn't break the law. Even if he did break the law or the Constitution, it may not be an impeachable offense. If his interpretation of the law is wrong he broke the law by authorizing unlawful actions, but it is not a "high crime or misdemeanor." ?Executive orders are found to be in violation of the Constitution or federal laws all the time and the president doesn't face impeachment.?

 

 

Examples? You state "all the time." Sure there been in few in the distinct past such as when then President Truman ordered military factories confiscated for the US war efforts by executive order without "probable cause" and as the US Supreme Court then ruled that President Truman did not US Congress legislated authorization. Also supposely then President Lincoln ordered a US Federal Judge arrested whom ruled against President Lincoln regarding the suspension of Habeas Corpous during the civil war. But I have read that there is no documnetation on Lincoln's arrest order today. But there are more examples of the Courts overturning legislated laws.

 

BTW if they let GW Bush continue then this situation becomes a precedent for future US Presidents to use as guideline.