Drones

Busch? You must be tired, blaming this on a beer and not a President.. :)

Let's face it; some of the Bush policies in place are costing us money...of that there is no doubt. The same can be said for some of the Clinton policies as well. I think there's enough blame to go around...

But if one really goes and looks at the policies Obama and his administration have put into place, and looked at their costs, one would see the majority of our spending and our debt increase is not due to this administration. Yes, the stimulus added to the debt, but not a significant amount. And Obama is going to have to own any costs the we incur from health care, and he is the one that asked for the extension for unemployment insurance.

But let's face it: when Obama entered office the Bush tax cuts were in place, the Bush wars were costing us big time money (in fact, of the $5 trillion increase attributed to Obama, roughly $1.6 trillion is related to the cost of these wars)...and the economy was in the toilet. Had Bush not cut taxes, had we not gotten into two wars, and had the economy not tanked, we wouldn't be facing the huge deficit we have now. Now I will blame Obama for keeping the tax cuts... that is his debt (to the tune of over $1.5 trillion). But consider about $.14 trillion of the debt increase is due to interest owed, and at least another $8-17 million of that debt can be attributed to an improperly funded Medicare part D. When one starts looking at where the money is going, it's easy to see that Obama deserves very little of the blame, as it was not his spending that got us into this mess.

I'm not blaming everything on Bush; as I said, there are some policies that were in place when Bush took office that have contributed to our economic woes; but to say Obama is 100% responsible because it's been 4 years is simply not valid. Referring to our debt/deficit: Obama didn't "build it"... not by himself, that's for sure.

I don't believe the President makes the determination of whether or not something is "legal"... that's up the Supreme Court, isn't it?

A decision like this can't possibly be made by one man (the president) or even by one administration.
People also tend to forget that often things like this are supported by 'both sides' of the table in the benefit of whats seen to be the safety and security of the rest of the people and the country as a whole
Someone recently posted a thread on the difference in immigration today compared to past times and there was an interesting reply from someone who said that in those days immigrants came to become Americans and now many only come to 'live in America'
That's probably more true and has been true for a few years and more now. There could be many legal citizens in this country who have no allegiance to it at all as their true loyalty lies elsewhere and they could pose a real threat. Some of them are even born here but still don't feel as if they are actually American.
They are strictly speaking citizens but do they deserve to be given any rights if they commit acts of terrorism against this country?
Does anyone deserve those rights if they do that or should they forfeit those rights for withdrawing their allegiance?
The only thing that stands between me being a citizen and being a permanent legal resident if for me to declare my allegiance to this country

The administration comes up with an idea, they then go to their legal team and ask them if it's legal. Legal team looks into it and briefs the administration on their legal opinion. The administration then uses the legal brief to go forward with a plan or chuck it in the trash depending on the results.

So in the case of drone use in the USA, the supreme court has no say at this time. They wont have a say until such time as there has been a case brought forward to them.

I agree, but ultimately it is the court that decides the legality, regardless of what the administration and its legal team say. But yes, the SC won't come into play unless someone challenges it.

But often it's to late by the time the supreme court hears a case as it can takes years. That means the rights of a heck of a lot of people can be trampled on before the government is told to knock it off. They count on that.

I sure won't disagree with this... :)

Well, here's a case that could give an idea of what the Supreme Court might think of police flying drones over private property without cause:

Police Need Warrant for Dogs Sniffing Homes, High Court Says - SFGate

Quick summary, police can't bring drug sniffing dogs to your front door of your house to see if they can get a hit without getting a search warrant first.

Darrin I agree 100% with that ruling. I am just shocked that Thomas and I agree on anything.
However drug sniffing dogs and drones are not the same. One deals with a criminal activity. Drones are a used in defense of our National Security. Shalom

Except drone use has spread to being used by darn near every enforcement agency out there.

Take the story this court case was about. Now instead of using a drug sniffing dog the police pulled a small RC chopper with a HD go pro attached to it. Fly it up to every window and peek inside looking for pot plants. They see some plants through a window then go get a warrant using that information. How is this any different then bringing a drug sniffing dog to the houses exterior to see if they can get a hit?