In an injunction ordered an immediate halt to the program, US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor tore into warrantless surveillance, which she found "violates the Separation of Powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III."
The government is also, under the ruling, barred from monitoring Internet communication without warrants.
GOI: The following are two of the best (and most powerful) quotes from the decision:
The Presidential Oath of Office is set forth in the Constitution and requires him to swear or affirm that he "will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The Government appears to argue here that, pursuant to the penumbra of Constitutional language in Article II, and particularly because the President is designated Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, he has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, itself.
We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all "inherent powers" must derive from that Constitution.
We have seen in Hamdi that the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution is fully applicable to the Executive branch's actions and therefore it can only follow that the First and Fourth Amendments must be applicable as well.
As Justice Warren wrote in U.S. v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967):
Implicit in the term ‘national defense’ is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this Nation apart. . . . It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of . . . those liberties . . . which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.
GOI: Wow, you mean the judge sided with the rule of law AND the Constitution??? What a concept. I guess she is a "radical," "activist," "terrorist supporting" judge in standing up for the Constitution and Constitutional rights. Hmmm, maybe what we will hear next is that this ruling doesn't apply to the Bush administration because they have their OWN Constitution. A shadow Constitution that was signed (and written on official White House paper) by: Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Dubya and titled by Dubya, "The Super Cool, Super duper, Undercover, So long as I'm the dictator, bring that other "Constitution" on, You're either with our Constitution or you are a terrorist and so long as I'm the decider, Constitution of the United Corporations of America under Bush's God until the Rapture."
---End of Transmission---