[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Like it or not, but according to the Constitution of the USA any bill that is passed by a majority of both Houses of Congress, then signed by the President is LAW. Legal president has ADDED that the SCoUS can deside if a law is constitutional or not.

Yes, it is the Supreme's realm to determine whether a law is Constitutional or not, but in this case the Constitution is very specific:

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. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

If the Supreme does not strike this law down, it is failing it's Constitutionally appointed duties.

Originally posted by John D Harris: As for revoking the consent you may not get any arguement here. Just don't try to give me the "sky is falling, the end is near, all hope is lost" lines. Or any other emotional horse and pony show. I'm not impressed by "coulda's, kinda's, or mighta's without some evidence to back it up. If presented with the choice between a chance of "Coulda X" happening because there exists the possiblity of it happening, or "Coulda Y" happening again(as in it has already happened once) I'm going to be more worried about "Coulda Y". ie: I'm more worried about a tornado destroying buildings in my town, then an asteroid. [/QB]

There is no fevered emotion in anything I've posted. I'm not sure what you are getting at towards the end here ....

Originally posted by John D Harris: So, it is ONLY an accusation, wether or not the writer has said it was given to him by SOMEONE in the White House or not. You are correct on who had the knowledge and reasons, BUT until they get into Court and a judgment is made they are accusations and allegations. Show me the Court ruling on this matter and I'll show you the Court ruling on the WJC matter

I don't really care who leaked the info, disclosing the identities of field operatives is unlawful at best and treasonous at worst. The fact is SOMEONE did leak the info. The author claim a White House source and claims protection of that source under an NDA. Congress is currently looking to remove the NDA. They have already made the request to the White House for assistance (CNN run a few days/weeks ago). We'll see how this pans out. Not sure about your tie in with Slick Willie.

Originally posted by John D Harris: Nobody said they weren't tap dancing in a mine field, what I said was "Who leaked of name of a CIA operative is currently ONLY an accusation not a fact." Is the investigation over yet? NO! Has a defendant been named? NO! Who is the presiding Judge? Has anybody seen those niffty court room drawings on TV or in the newspapers?[/QB]

I believe House Judiciary is looking into this. The only names given so far are the author and the White House Press Secretary.

Originally posted by John D Harris: I don't give a rat's rear end about the emotion or feelings surrounding this incident, only the facts. Mr Gore stated " Yet at the same time, White House officials themselves leaked the name of a CIA operative serving the country, in clear violation of the law," An inaccurate statement. If Mr Gore had said "Yet at the same time, White House officials themselves are accused to have leaked the name of a CIA operative serving the country, in clear violation of the law,". Or are "alledged" to have. There would be no problem because that would be accurate. Don't make the mistake of assumeing a desire for accuracy and taking a side are the same thing. I don't believe anybody can find anywhere I have stated that the White house didn't leak anything. In FACT I posed the question to those who wanted to go after this leaker if they also wanted to go after the leaks coming out of Congressional offices, or other gov't offices, because I sure as "HALE" did. I want to investigate ALL of them. [/QB]

I very much agree with the last two statements. As for the emotion and what not .... I care only about the facts. And the facts are this administration is doing more to subvert the Constitution than almost any other President since Abe Lincoln. And that's only looking at the signing of PATRIOT ACT. The rabbit hole goes much deeper.

Please don't confuze me with a liberal though .... Libritarian