Should Federal Judges monitor the President in person to deter or detect his violations of the law?
604163
Absolutely not.  First of all, that would be far too much power for the judiciary to have.  No one branch is to have peremptory oversight over the other.  Second of all, judges might easily see things differently.  Some judges think that not Mirandizing a suspect is constitutional while others don't.  You might easily run into a problem where the justices overseeing the President disagree and then you have gridlock - like we need more of those in our government.  Also, just because those overseers say it's constitutional or not doesn't mean the SCOTUS will agree, so they're a moot entity.  Finally, the President has a chief legal counsel who advises him whether or not something is constitutional - don't you remember Alberto Gonzalez claiming that torture was constitutional?  You say that the judges would report the Prez if he executes an unconstitutional action, but who's to say they're right?  It must be left to the SCOTUS.\n\nMy  biggest point is saved for here though:  you cannot politicize the judiciary.
733035
The FISA courts can't keep up with the real-time flow of actionable intelligence.\n\nThis is why the NSA's monitoring program is so vital
10324
He does have the authority to put on secret wire taps, but he is supposed to receive a warrant from the FISA courts (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act courts) either before or within 72 hours of placing the tap. The courts records are completely secret and they have in all but a few of several thousand cases issued the warrants. By not doing so, Bush is clearly violating FISA.
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.
416840
I think that ANY mandeotory sentances are a mistake.  The Federal Criminal system has adopted this type of system.  By saying that anyone who commits three crimes, whether they be felonies or driving mistakes, should be in jail it is saying that all three-time-offenders are the same.  That the judge hearing the case, who may have 40 years of experience in judging criminals and sentencing people should have no ability to make the decision. \nIt says that a bunch of politicians, most of which are not lawyers at all, know better than the justice system.\nPoliticians have enough trouble writing decent laws.  The penalties ought to be left to people who are experienced in that area.
816435
I guess that would be the Judge since he is the only government official who can impose a sentence for a crime. If your area has some type of diversion or community service program, perhaps the person sentenced is referred to some type of director who ensures that the Judge's order is carried out.
944002
They already have a law in place to listen to calls for 72 hours before they get a warrant. It's the FISA law. And the president is to obey the law, just like us.Without oversight, the president can wiretap anybody he wants. That is what got Nixon in trouble and caused the creation of the FISA law.
1015583
That appears to violate the constitution since it requires a person who has done nothing to provide self-incriminating evidence to the police. It lacks "probable cause," and would therefore be unconstitutional.
864348
In most cases they usually check both state and federal depending the type of offenses that the person have occur ed
822563
Absolutely. \n\nHow about this!\n\nAn Initiative By the Citizens of the State of ------\n\nWhereas the security of the citizens of the State of ------ is the responsibility of the law enforcement agencies of the State;\n\nWhereas the law enforcement agencies of the State are not enabled to enforce certain laws of the United States;\n\nWhereas the citizens of the State of ------ will benefit if State and local law enforcement agencies are authorized to enforce certain laws of the United States;\n\nIt is in the best interests of the citizens of the State of ------ to authorize the law enforcement agencies of the State of ------ to enforce certain laws of the United States.\n\nThe local and State law enforcement agencies of the State of ------ are hereby authorized to enforce criminal laws of the United States, except in such areas that the United States has expressly reserved enforcement of such laws to the United States and its agencies.\n\nThe prosecutors of the local and State entities are authorized to prosecute persons accused of violation of the laws of the United States, which have been apprehended by State or local law enforcement agencies.\n\nThe courts of the State of ------ are authorized to adjudicate cases brought by prosecutors of the local and State entities subject to the jurisdictional requirements of Section *.\n\n                    State and local agencies are authorized to seek reimbursement from the United States for enforcement efforts.\n\nThis initiative must be signed by a specific number of people, accourding to your specific codes, then.....with enough signatures must be put on a ballot for the people to vote on.\n\n\nLiberal judges are working outside of their realm of authority when they elect to rule on a point of law which is already on the books.  It is their job to enforce existing laws, not to create new law....against the will of the people.
98336
FISA attempts to impose a sense of ethics, in my opinion. Wire taps can be in place for up to 72 hrs befor a FISA court has to be asked for permission.\n\nYes, he did.
751936
But for that power being exercised by the courts, we would not have known the foul play in the AP case of pardon. Our Constitution has envisaged a system of checks and balances. Judicial Review is a must for review all the administrative actions of the President and the Governors. There must be a system to check and control even the Judges of the SC and High Courts.
80038
Could you please provide me with the name of 1 American citizen that "the president" spied on?  The president did NOT snub the law as many of you like to say in this section.
561502
No, well let me qualify that, not unless you make an overt threat that you could possibly carry out that might bring physical danger to the President. If you really want Bush's attention take a Jack Hammer to DC and start pounding the pavement near the white house, the Capitol Police will shut down the capital, fearing your jackhammer is the rapport of an automatic weapon, and when you get swat teamed by the SS Bush is sure to at least get a situation report about your activities.
281112
Protection of the Presidents and their families, protection of dignatories, and counterfitting
961971
None, he has committed no constitutional breach or federal crime.  What crime would you say he has committed?
688076
Yes the Honorable President can direct the Government to enact a law to avoid such things and to dismiss the official(S)/Officer(S) responsible for such serious lapses.