NSA And The History Of The Fourth Amendment
Former New Jersey Superior Court judge and Constitution expert Andrew Napolitano writes at reason that we're tumbling down a slippery slope:
When British soldiers were roaming the American countryside in the 1760s with lawful search warrants with which they had authorized themselves to enter the private homes of colonists in order to search for government-issued stamps, Thomas Paine wrote, "These are the times that try men's souls." The soul-searching became a revolution in thinking about the relationship of government to individuals. That thinking led to casting off a king and writing a Constitution.What offended the colonists when the soldiers came legally knocking was the violation of their natural right to privacy, their right to be left alone. We all have the need and right to be left alone. We all know that we function more fully as human beings when no authority figure monitors us or compels us to ask for a permission slip. This right comes from within us, not from the government.
...In 30 years, from 1979 to 2009, the legal standard for searching and seizing private communications -- the bar that the Constitution requires the government to meet -- was lowered by Congress from probable cause of crime to probable cause of being an agent of a foreign power to probable cause of being a foreign person to probable cause of communicating with a foreign person. Congress made all these changes, notwithstanding the oath that each member of Congress took to uphold the Constitution. It is obvious that the present standard, probable cause of communicating with a foreign person, bears no rational or lawful resemblance to the constitutionally mandated standard: probable cause of crime.
Now we know that the feds have seized the telephone records of more than 100 million Americans and the email and texting records of nearly everyone in the U.S. for a few years. They have obtained this under the laws that permit them to do so. These laws -- just like the ones that let British soldiers write their own search warrants -- were validly enacted, but they are profoundly unconstitutional. They are unconstitutional because they purport to change the clear and direct language in the Constitution, and Congress is not authorized to make those changes.
These laws undermine the reasons the Constitution was written, one of which was to guarantee the freedom to exercise one's natural rights. These laws directly contradict the core American value that our rights come from our humanity and may not be legislated away -- not by a vote of Congress, not by the consensus of our neighbors, not even by agreement of all Americans but one.
"Privacy" or the "Right to privacy" is not mentioned or addressed in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
We did not get achieve the right to privacy as a legally protected right until the Supreme Court case of Griswold vs. Connecticut in 1965. That case involved contraceptives which Connecticut banned at the time. The dissent in the case specifically found for Connecticut saying the Constitution did not allow a right to privacy. But the majority ruled that the right to privacy "emanates" through the "penumbras" in the Constitution and therefore is a constitutional right.
Nick at June 13, 2013 9:33 AM
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/061213-659753-all-intrusive-obama-terror-dragnet-excludes-mosques.htm
As with almost everything else,it is selective enforcement and using the info for non law enforcement purposes that is one of the biggest problems.
Isab at June 13, 2013 1:05 PM
The text of the Fourth Amendment:
If you believe that just Verizon was reporting in the phone records you are foolish.
Just to point out collecting the metadata, duration and time of every cell phone call does not support probable cause, has no affirmation and does not describe the place to be searched or the things to be seized.
But somehow this is supposed to be legal?
Jim P. at June 13, 2013 7:29 PM
"Privacy" or the "Right to privacy" is not mentioned or addressed in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
Yes, and? instead of doing a text search, you might want to actually read the Bill of Rights. You'd find this little gem as Amendment IX:
Yes, I know the Federal Government would like to pretend that IX and X don't actually exist, but they do. It's a real pity that the judiciary doesn't invoke IX when discussing privacy rights.
As Obama has decried, the Constitution is a limitation on the power of Government, not those of the people.
I R A Darth Aggie at June 14, 2013 7:24 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/06/13/nsa_and_the_his.html#comment-3749134">comment from I R A Darth AggieNinth Amendment is extremely important to the preservation of our rights, except for how those who get in power typically immediately begin to ignore it.
Amy Alkon
at June 14, 2013 9:12 AM
How did the need for Probable Cause just go *poof*? How did I miss that? When exactly did it happen? I'd seriously like to know.
bmused at June 14, 2013 1:43 PM
Leave a comment