In your face, jerkoff
(See above post)
[F]or now, at least, the White House has found its crucial sound-bite incantation: "Congressional authorization." We will be hearing nothing else from the right-wing punditry until a popular myth is established to the effect that the Republican-controlled Congress need only ram through a bill legitimizing the existing system, to which the President can even append "signing statements" indicating his determination to ignore any language he dislikes.
It's clear that the Bush Administration reads the Constitution of the United States with a contemptuous and very selective eye. It finds within it a plethora of concomitant rights for itself, such as the right to deny trials to so-called "enemy combatants," to torture foreign captives, and to spy on innocent US citizens without a warrant.
All of these activities are expressly forbidden by the Constitution.
Denying trials is forbidden by the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Note the key phrase "no person," as opposed to "no citizen."
Torture is forbidden by the Eighth Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The restriction is unconditional.
Warrantless spying is forbidden by the Fourth Amendment: "...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."
The Constitution is paramount to all other laws. And [today], the Court said it: the President does not have the power to violate the Constitution. And, we will add, Congress does not have the power to authorize the President to violate the Constitution.
- from the UK Register, which seems to know the US Constitution better than Faux News' fuckheaded fauxpatriot John Gibson.