Turley, who is something called a “professor” at something called a “university,” should consider getting a law degree. He might learn something.

I think the Olbermanns and Greenwalds of the world are just now realizing that “change” really was just a campaign slogan.

If he’s against it I’m probably for it.

I am amused but unsurprised at a certain element of my political block missing a very large forest for particular trees…but I do agree they help make my liberalism look very moderate, so I highly encourage them to beclown themselves.

I’ve always said the most annoying political movements out there are all the crazies on “my” team – I actually have to make excuses for them. Yours I just get to try and smite .

Always nice to read your work, Leon. Nicer still when I’m nodding my head in agreement.

In the way-way back machine, they used to teach this in high school civics class. No wonder we now have the egregious prosecutorial misconduct displayed in the Stevens case.

they deserve credit for getting it right.

Here’s hoping they spend more & more time driving Olby nuts from now until January 20, 2013.

NT

What happen to the tingle running down Keith’s leg at the thought of Obama? I thought Obama could do no wrong in Keith’s eyes. I guess Keith is just beginning to learn that Obama is not a saint.

[Just because. - ML]

[...]
It runs counter to the libertarian foundations of the conservative movement.

Could someone that supports Bush and Obama’s wiretapping program please explain to me why this program is needed? If the government wants to conduct wiretaps, they can go to the FISA court and get a warrant. If the FISA court it too small to handle the increased volume of wiretaps that maybe needed (after 9/11, or whatever other reason), then pass a law to expand the size of the court for handling the increase in volume. Why wouldn’t that be adequate?

Thanks for dropping by.

Best,
Barack

PS – You sounded like you didn’t really even know how to PRONOUNCE “sovereign immunity”. Nice touch!

Without delving into the issue of jurisdiction and immunity, let me ask:

Do you believe the Fourth Amendment protects Americans in general against surveillance, and if not, why not? And if not, if Congress passed a law permitting unmitigated surveillance by any federal, state, or local agency for any purpose, what Constitutional constraints would impinge upon such legislation? I’m trying to figure out where the line between “Constitutional” and “Not Constitutional” is, and your article, while educational on the nature of immunity, is informative, it doesn’t answer that question.

Secondly, when the executive and legislative branches of government do violate the Constitution – not speaking of the issue at hand per se – what recourse do citizens have? If a federal agency acts in an unconstiutional manner, and they are immune from suit, then it stands to reason that the courts can only act as a check against Unconstitutional acts if someone must appear before a court as a matter of course. So if they were being prosecuted, the court could consider the Constitutional principles, but not otherwise.

And moreover, does the immunity from prosecution of the government extend to all its agents? So while the government may be immune directly from prosecution, would a violation of a Constitutional protection render, say, an individual NSA agent liable to suit under law?

Let’s say, for example, that Obama directed the NSA to spy on Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, and to gather information about their planned coverage, to identify and log their sources, to spy on their reporters, news directors, production assistants, and executives to identify any possible misdeed which could then be prosecuted under other laws. (Ostensibly to harrass them and thereby damage their coverage and their viewship numbers.) Would that be legal? And if not, what remedy would the victims of their illegal surveillance have against a government that was immune to prosecution?