Ruling for the Law: Difference between revisions

From Discourse DB
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
(Rephrasing again)
Line 7: Line 7:
}}
}}


{{opinion|NSA warrantless surveillance controversy|Program should be ruled unconstitutional|for}}
{{opinion|NSA warrantless surveillance controversy|Judge Taylor should have ruled program unconstitutional|for}}


[[Category:War on terror]]
[[Category:War on terror]]

Revision as of 17:00, August 18, 2006

This is an opinion item.

Author(s) New York Times Editorial Staff
Source New York Times
Date 8/18/2006
URL http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/18/opinion/18fri1.html
Quote
Quotes-start.png "But for now, with a careful, thoroughly grounded opinion, one judge in Michigan has done what 535 members of Congress have so abysmally failed to do. She has reasserted the rule of law over a lawless administration and shown why issues of this kind belong within the constitutional process created more than two centuries ago to handle them." Quotes-end.png


Add or change this opinion item's references


This item argues for the position Judge Taylor should have ruled program unconstitutional on the topic NSA warrantless surveillance controversy.