That findlaw article does discuss that. Essentially the courts grants the warrents on application from the DOJ or its state equivalent etc.
On 1/23/06, Tim Heald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think that the 4th is really clear on who grants warrants is it? > > It's always been up to a court, an open court, to decide. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 10:20 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: States Rights: was(RE: [signs of sanity] MD no > > longer subsidizing Walmart) > > > > I was saying the Constitution gives the president the power > > to order the wiretaps. The amendment would be to remove that right. > > > > On 1/22/06, Tim Heald wrote: > > > It is black an white, oh and red. Black and white in the > > > constitution, and red of the blood of those who have > > defended said document. > > > > > > You would NEVER get that shit pushed through as an > > amendment, and you > > > know it. Although, since we would need a constitutional amendment, > > > and you agree that we would, doesn't that mean what this > > > administration, and many others, have essentially broken the law? > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:193769 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
