Crossposted From Stop The ACLU: Judge Roy Moore makes a New Years Resolution that I’m definitely on board with. Each year the American Civil Liberties Union and other liberal organizations continue their efforts to destroy traditional values that we o…

It is not that hard to correctly interpret the law as the legislators wrote it. All you need are the U.S. Constitution and the FISA Law and to determine what the original intent. Bush is not in violation of the U.S. Constitution as it only covers citizens and is establish among other things to secure the common defense but he is in violation of the FISA law because it requires the executive branch to get a warrant. Lawyers just like to make things complicated so they can make more money. Judges are just lawyers who also play politics. They need to be held accountable by the people despite all their mysticism and mumbo jumbo.

Bush did bring in another law which he said had precedent over the FISA law. It is plausible but it really depends on what the legislators were trying to accomplish in passing the law and not on what Bush or any judge wants it to mean. I do not have enough knowledge of the law Bush mentioned to make a judgment one way or another.

You are incorrect as we live in a republic that is the rule of the people by the people and for the people.

Yeah, as soon as I wrote that, I realized I would probably get a response such as yours. Allow me to clarify.

I do have every right (you could even say I have an obligation to) to form and voice an opinion on this issue. But this is an extremely complicated issue involving numerous laws and a slew of legal precendents interpreting those laws. Honest, well-trained men will spend months hashing this out before our highest courts and even they won’t know the outcome until it’s all said and done. I could form and voice an opinion on this issue, but it would be based solely on intuition. I would have to spend all week reading legal books to form an educated opinion, but even that would be only marginally more useful that what the talking heads will spew.

In this particular case, there is a well-funded organization lobbying for the side that I feel is right, so I’ll just sit back and watch the fight.

If you can not understand the law then it is a bad law as far as you are concerned.

I agree with your sentiment, but I don’t think it’s quite that simple. You have three options when writing a law. You can make it very specific, very vague, or somewhere in between.

If you made them all very specific, every situation would be spelled out and it would be very easy for a layman to understand. But we’d probably run out of trees and half of our workforce would probably be working for congress. And they’d still probably forget things.

So the only realistic option is to use laws that are less specific to some degree. But now they’re open to interpretation. Especially when several completely different laws are applicable.

So, I don’t think we could ever reach the ideal that you advocate, I do think our code of laws should be simplified so as to give us laymen a fighting chance.

Seems to me, if a guy, in Afghanistan is shooting our guys, dressed as a civilian, I’d say he’s either Taliban or al Qaeda in which case he’s a terrorist.

I’m sure no one would dispute with your interpretation of that scenario, but they aren’t all going to be that easy.

What if he was unarmed when he was apprehended? What if no soldiers could honestly say that the suspect was involved in the fire-fight?

When the situation is not cut and dried, you need to have someone responsible for weighing the evidence and rendering a verdict. As a key part of the separation of powers, this responsibility has always gone to the judicial branch. (Exception: I’m not sure whether Military Tribunals and Courts Martial are considered Executive or Judicial.) If you don’t allow the captives some sort of hearing, you’re handing that power to the Executive branch. Seems very dangerous to me.

“I’m no lawyer, so it’s certainly not my place to say whether this program is legit,”

You are incorrect as we live in a republic that is the rule of the people by the people and for the people. Do not give lawyers, judges or anyone else the power of an aristocracy. They are our employees and we need to hold them responsible.

If you can not understand the law then it is a bad law as far as you are concerned. Americans need to stand up for their power to be the boss or they will loose it as they are loosing it and have lost it.