The House Democrats stand up to President Bush. Who is right?

[just_me]

President Bush is pushing Congress to extend immunity to the telephone companies that have been conducting illegal wire-tapping -- without a court order.

The question is: "Is it OK to bypass the US Constitution and *not* get a court-order to gather evidence against suspects?"

If the government gathers information illegally, then they can't use it in a court-of-law (this is called "fruit of a poison tree").

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

It seems like the Bush administration has messed up by bypassing judges and asking the telephone companies to gather evidence that, now, cannot be used in court to prosecute anyone, including terrorists.

The Bush-Cheney administration is now trying to coverup the wrong-doing by asking Congress to bypass the Judiciary as well.

One perspective of what is right:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/34134prs20080215.html

Another perspective of what is right:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandSecurity/wm1810.cfm
That's a good point that when the US Constitution was ratified that there were no telephone or Internet to eaves drop.

But, in the days before the Revolutionary War, the "quartering of troops" was not merely a tax. Taxes are necessary because without taxes, governments would have no resource and there would be anarchy.

I believe that the reason that our Founding Fathers prohibited the "quartering of troops" in the Constitution was not that it was a room-and-board tax -- the reason that they prohibited troops being in your house was because it was a violation of privacy and a violation of free speech. Colonists couldn't even talk among themselves and think out loud and discuss anything with the red-coats possibly eaves-dropping.

When telephones became available, the Supreme Court had to interpret the Constitution and found that a person had a "right to privacy" under the Constitution.

Katz v. United States:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States

[Jim N]

A better question would be who are we worried about - is it the threat from terrorists or is it who can "step in dog crap and come out smelling like roses"? It used to be that after an election the two parties would actually work for the best interests of our country. Now is it nothing more than a constant "blame game" my the two parties. The one that is in office spends all their time blaming everything that is wrong of the last administration, or the Senate or the House of Representatives. The party "out of office", spends all their time trying to make the other party look bad. Whatever happened to working together for the good of the country? If terrorists "nuke" Washington, D.C., who will they (dems or republicans) blame then?

[meganbremer]

whats wrong with the world today?

[ConcernedCitizen]

The President should not be allowed to bypass the checks and balances established by the Constitution. I don't care what the circumstances are. It sets a dangerous precedent that could allow the President to become a dictator. If you don't think an elected official could become a dictator, don't forget that Hitler was elected. When Bush took office, he swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and he must be either held to it or impeached.

In other words, Congress is right and they had better stick to their guns.