Re:Secret government: America against democracy
by glesica on Tuesday July 09, 2013 @11:38PM
(#6017314)
I'm not really interested in whether the FISC is constitutional or not. My objection is that you appeared to discount the popular outrage over the FISC. This is actually one of the reasons I didn't go to law school, I'm much more concerned with whether something is good, sound policy than whether it is technically constitutional or not. Just as "legal" and "moral" or "right" are different beasts, so too are "constitutional" and "smart" or "justified".
edit: didn't realize you were the GP :)
Re:Secret government: America against democracy
by Uchikoma on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @12:35AM
(#6017466)
"not adhering to Article III doesn't automatically make the FISC unconstitutional." nice try with a straw man attack.
* There are Article I courts; Congress is empowered to create tribunals for which the Article III appointment rules don't apply. Since the FISC is adjudicating policies that Congress is already empowered to legislate (the Constitution being as silent on foreign surveillance as it is on the makeup of the Air Force), not adhering to Article III doesn't automatically make the FISC unconstitutional.
* In trying to pursue my leg of this argument over the past couple days, I've been pretty well slapped down on the idea that appointment issues damage the Article III standing of the FISC:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6010406