This fragment:

shall, notwithstanding any other law, if the Attorney General files an affidavit under oath that disclosure or an adversary hearing would harm the national security of the United States, review in camera and ex parte the application, order, and such other materials relating to the surveillance as may be necessary to determine whether the surveillance of the aggrieved person was lawfully authorized and conducted.

In code:
If AG.Affidavit = secret
then
if review_in_camera & ex parte( the stuff ) = lawful
then result = lawful
else result = unlawful
end
else ? and this is the missing piece in the fragments….

? is what to do if the ag does nothing, or declares the information not secret…and what’s the initial condition of AG.Affidavit? secret or not secret.

Not only is this spec (law) imprecise, it fails to define initial conditions, or boundary conditions.

The fragment is an appaling piece of logic.

A simple tool, the flowchart, would be an even clearer mechanism for defining “rules”. English? Not so good.

I’m not sure they can tell the court to do that, but it is a pretty laughable argument that it would mean that the court can never order in camera peeks unless a Reynolds affidavit is filed. IMO, either construction might be unconstituional (I just don’t think Congress can tell the courts when they HAVE to hold in camera reviews) but the construction that the universe of times the court can require in camera production is limited to the subset of when a Reynold’s affidavit is filed – that just silliness. In a not funny way.

On the 802 certifications, what gov is saying is that Walker is right that they have discretion, but wrong that the discretion is violative of non-delegation doctrines or is facially overbroad.

I really have to wonder at people who continue to work for this department of justice. It’s not a good place and it’s not generating good for the country. Why would someone knowingly choose every day to show up and be paid for harming their country and their own soul – I just don’t get it.

the court can either cut it’s own throat, or rule in favor of the People

the rubes should be able to understand that

I did …

Obama maintaining the same position begs many questions…like…”Why?”

I know the answer… We just need to keep the “why” in discussion…a great deal.

Thanks for the post.

I’ve heard of male pattern baldness, but I never seen that pattern before …

which team has the first draft pick again ???

oh yeah, big blue

(ducking an running)