Should the President be policed in person by 4 Federal Judges to deter him from violating the Constitution?
552354
Members of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President subject to the approval of the Senate. To ensure an independent Judiciary and to protect judges from partisan pressures, the Constitution provides that judges serve during "good Behavior," which has generally meant life terms.How would congress elect a judge its unconstitutional for the obvious reason the Congress is partisan by the majority party.Beside how could Bill Clinton have invited Monica in for a hummer,if congress was listening in ,wouldn't that be tacky.\nYour not the brightest bulb in the chandelier are you?Nothing personal but you might want to get educated on the U.S political system and process before you suggest overturning the constitution.
686868
Because he is firm one with self determination who knows what to do for his people one who knows how to protect his people and one who knows how to find eployment opportuinities for his people. If I would be American I would suggest the constitution to be changed so that he can continue to be the prsident for the third time.
56012
Of course not. You should be the first one to obey the constitution because you swore to abide by it
97659
No (except in three cases, below)\n\nArticle 1, Section 6 of the Constitution provides that:\n"They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
46758
Yes, of course he has broken the law.  Regardless of his representations to the contrary, there is no such authorization in the Constitution, in case law, or in the statutes or regulations.  His behavior is impermissible and he should most definitely be impeached for illegal wiretapping and, if found guilty, be removed from his office in disgrace.
693206
The court refused to issue the injunction requested because the court does not have discretionary review of Executive authority.\n\n"The president is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience. ... And whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists, and can exist, no power to control that discretion. The acts of such an officer, as an officer, can never be examinable by the courts." 5 US 137 @ 166\n\nIn other words, as long as the Executive is acting WITHIN the bounds established by law, the Executive has with the sole authority to determine how laws are to be enforced. And as long as the officer does not violate the law, the only remedy available is impeachment\n\n"The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. ... But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy." 5 US 137 @ 163-166
1152293
The Bill of Rights grant any American citizen to say what ever he wants about the country.  However, threatening the country or their leaders could rightfully lead to being shot in the face
15997
The President of the United States has 6 categories of power.  Under the category of Executive powers he or she has "Executive Orders" powers.  These powers a simliar to the legislative or judicial powers.\n\nBeing that the government is setup with equal power among the branches, the Supreme Court could rule what the President is doing is in violation of Constitutional rights.\n\nAbraham Lincoln violated consitutional rights doing the Civil war by suspending Habeas Corpus, that is the right of a person who has been arrested to know the charges they are being held on.\n\nThe Supreme Court ruled this was unconstitutional, however another presidential power suspended the Supreme Courts decision.\n\nUnder the President Military Powers, he or she is able to order the military into action.  During the Civil War Lincoln told the Supreme Court if they forced action he would order the military to arrest all of the Justices.  The Supreme Court backed down and waited until after the war was over to rule.\n\nWith the powers given to the President by the people of the United States through the US Constitution as well as the Constituion stating the government must protect the citizens of the United States, yes, it is well within the power of the President to take actions considered by the government to protect the citizens.
53553
yes. The president can appoint judges to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is part of the Judicial branch. The Senate can 'advise and consent' to the president's decision.\n*Just because the president appoints the judge, that doesn't mean his decision is final.
439123
Absolutely not.  Contrary to what Mr. Bush claims, I don't think that the Authorization for the Use of Force gave him the power to listen to conversations without evidence.  It's a constitutional right that we should be secure in our property and effects, and the government can NOT remove that right without due process (i.e. a warrant).  The day that we let him take that power, we can also say goodbye to free speech.
272888
Our constitutional right to privacy was definitely negated in this situation. If the government suspects someone of having terroristic capabilities, I do not think it would be too hard for them to get a warrant to eavesdrop the legal way. Bush is just trying cover his butts, as well as other members of our government are doing likewise. There are many conspiracy theories floating around concerning Bush and a few other members of our government, I think it is time the people of this nation take our government back, too many "actors" in power with selfish intentions!
281112
Protection of the Presidents and their families, protection of dignatories, and counterfitting
923306
FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - '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.'\nprobably not. it all depends on the skill of the prosecutor, and the strength of their evidence. if it's a constitutional issue (which 4th amendment is) you'll need to hire a separate constitutional lawyer (believe it or not, hillary clinton is one of the best!) to address the constitutionality of the point in case. any more ?'s, just ask. "i ain't passed the bar but i know a little bit.....enough that you won't illegally search my shit."  - jay z
798752
I only need one. He violated his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.
927929
I think you are on the right track. Exposing Judges to the electorate does undermine their judicial Independence. I think the best solution is a Judicial review committee of fellow judges not to uphold or strike down rulings ( we already have an appeals court system) but to rate the job performance of judges and give guidance. This Body would be empowered to give private and public rebukes and when necessary refer judges to legislative bodies for Impeachment in extreme cases of judicial misconduct. this would impose a buffer between judges and the electorate preserving judicial Independence while still exposing them to peer review and ultimately the electorate for severe misconduct.
855456
You're asking if the lawyer who said it was OK for the government to break the law should become a judge.\n\nI can't think of anything more dangerous than a federal judge who has shown that they believe the government can break the law.
928580
You need to read the Constitution.