So which Amendment is it that permits subordination of the Constitution to "safety from terrorism?"

[markpkessinger]

Last edited Sat Jun 15, 2013, 11:22 PM - Edit history (1)

I mean, it must be in there someplace, right? Surely we thought somewhere along the way to amend the Constitution to permit us to water down, set aside and otherwise subordinate, as we deem necessary, the express provisions of the Bill of Rights to the pursuit of 'keeping Americans safe from the Terror Bogeyman' whenever we might face security challenges.

Wait, you mean we didn't?

In all of the debates and discussions over security and how best to "keep Americans safe from terror" that have ensued in the post-9-11 period, virtually all of them have accepted it as a given that the government's overarching responsibility and purpose is to "keep Americans safe from terror," and that all other considerations -- civil liberties, privacy, the Constitution --must be subordinated to that 'greater purpose.' Well, I"m sorry, but I simply don't accept that. The price of living in a free and open society, which has been free and open by virtue of the civil liberties enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, is that we expose ourselves to certain risks and vulnerabilities. It means we accept the fact that, now and then, malevolent persons or groups may very well exploit that very freedom and openness in order to commit dastardly acts, up to and including those acts we call 'terrorism.' The trade-off between our civil liberties and public safety was every bit as real in 1787 as it is today. Indeed, Benjamin Franklin's famous comment about the just deserts of of those who would "sacrifice essential liberty, in order to purchase a little temporary safety," points to precisely this trade-off.

It strains credulity, then, to think that our founders intended for us to blithely compromise or subordinate those civil liberties (for which such care was taken to enshrine them into the central law of the land) every time we faced a security challenge. I submit our founders would have scoffed at the notion that the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be subordinated to some illusory notion of 'safety.' They understood that the world was, and always would be a (sometimes) dangerous place. It is interesting to note that the words 'safety' and 'security' each appear exactly once in the entire document, including amendments: 'safety' in Article I, Section 9, sub-paragraph 2, which describes the only conditions under which the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended, and 'the word 'security' appears (ironically enough) in the Second Amendment.

It's one thing to take such precautions as we can take, within the parameters of the Constitution, to try to reduce the risk from terrorism. It is quite another when elevate 'safety' to a level that requires all other considerations to be subordinated to it. Perhaps what we need is to collectively grow up about the fact that to live in a relatively free and open society includes living with a certain degree of risk. Of course, actually embracing such an ethic would require us to forswear the political opportunism of charges that "President X failed to keep us safe" whenever a terrorist attack succeeds, as well as the equally absurd, "President Y kept us safe" merely because no successful attacks were carried out on that President's watch. Perhaps we need to remember that we -- ordinary citizens -- are actively defending freedom whenever we go about our lives and our business knowing full well that we do so under certain risks, and yet doing so despite those risks.

Our founders were well acquainted with the 'cost of freedom.' They believed the liberties enshrined in our Constitution were worth dying for. The question for us is, do we?

[Melinda]

1. Eloquently stated, and well written. I applaud your position and agree with every point.

Thank you for taking the time to compose such a thoughtful argument. Bravo. Simply bravo.

[kardonb]

70. constitution

The constitution was written , and its authors lived , in the 18th. century. They could not possibly foresee how the world and circumstances have changed in the 21st. century .

Therefore , it is time to look at facts and , maybe , adapt the constitution to modern circumstances .

This can be done through a Constitutional Convention with input and cooperation from all parties .

[Melinda]

92. History is replete with fallen republics; with "terrorism" and oppressive govts.

What was written in the 18th century could have been applied time and time again in prior centuries. As Jefferson wrote

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Look back to the times of Athens, Sparta, and Rome. The beginnings of real wealth through trade during the Renaissance and all the subsequent govts over the next few centuries. And then our own American Revolution. History teaches us many things, and the forefathers of this country learned the lessons of these many, many centuries and used the history of governance to form and guarantee our freedom as citizens - our Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

We as a people are governed only by our consent. In order to consent, we must be informed. History teaches what happens under authoritarian govts and oligarchies. It does. My god, look at the last century too see and learn what governments without consent do to their citizens. The founding fathers studied and learned and applied these lessons; they recorded an amazing covenant with Americans, the freely governed. And nothing about this is remotely archaic - every bit is as applicable today as the day it was written.

[ReRe]

103. Well, go on, try it....

A Constitutional Convention would never be convened on your premise. Dream on.

[Hydra]

2. Thank you for making it an OP!

I'm continually mystified by the meme that we need to give up our rights for more safety.

I may be a weirdo, but I'm feeling less and less safe FROM MY OWN GOVERNMENT and not any more safe from the people they used to fiance to fight the Russians.

Rule of law- support it or prepare to fight to keep anything you currently have.

[magellan]

3. Perfectly stated

Thank you for taking the time to write and share this.

K&r

[woo me with science]

4. Hear, hear!

They are attempting to normalize the step-by-step elimination of the Constitution.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022981711

[damnedifIknow]

5. This needs to be spread

Says it all.

[99Forever]

6. Well stated.

This cannot be allowed to stand.

[snappyturtle]

7. What's the scariest is the selection of the term "terrorism". Perfect for morphing into

whatever the fear du jour TPTB want to put on the menu.

[Myrina]

61. Yep. Already KeystoneXL protesters have been so labeled

Who next? Code Pink? NARAL? The Newton Families?

[snappyturtle]

89. I agree...OWS? nt

[HooptieWagon]

104. I would not be surprised one bit...

if the groups mentioned, plus OWS, have been secretly labelled "terrorists",,, their communication secretly monitored due to a warrant secretly issued by a FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE Court that operates under no Congressional or public oversight. Hitler and Stalin would be so proud of the DUers who are embracing and defending such neo-totalitarian state acts. And by their posts, we know who they are.

[ReRe]

106. The 1st Amendment...

... must be the another amendment they have a "secret" interpretation of (besides the 4th.)

[Psephos]

8. What a superb post. You speak for me. n/t

[mindwalker_i]

9. It's the amendment where a bunch of people

said, "Aaaaaa, we're not safe!" And then bend THEMSELVES over and begged the government to "protect" them. Never mind that the likelihood of being accentally shot by a 1-year-old is 50000 times greater than the likelihood of getting killed by a terraist.

"PLease, take my butt!"

[JDPriestly]

10. K&R

[sabrina 1]

11. Very well said. Thank you for understanding the meaning of a free society.

The price of living in a free and open society, which has been free and open by virtue of the civil liberties enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, is that we expose ourselves to certain risks and vulnerabilities.

I am assuming you realize that we are being lied to that any of this is about 'keeping us safe from terror'.

And I'm sure before long, someone will be along to explain to you that 'there are different interpretations of the 4th Amendment' or the 5th, whatever one is being violated.

'We can't be 100% secure without giving up some of our rights'

Compare that to Ben Franklin's statement about security and rights.

Btw, that was Obama, incredibly, this past week explaining why we need to be spied on.

[Mnemosyne]

12. K&R for truth. nt

[markpkessinger]

13. Oh yes, I'm fully aware that it's a sham...

. . . But I was addressing the argument because, apparently, much of the American public (including many here on DU) accept it as a legitimate rationale for, well, just about anything the government tells us it's a good rationale for.

[sabrina 1]

14. I had a feeling you probably did.

Thank the gods not everyone is fooled by the lies!

[SammyWinstonJack]

118. Things that make you go hmmm....

We can't be 100% secure without giving up some of our rights'


Kind of a strange thing for a Constitutional law professor to say, doncha think?

[JayhawkSD]

15. Very well put.

“This program provided information which prevented dozens of terrorist attacks on our homeland.”

Does that line, spoken by the Obama administration in defense of the NSA surveillance programs, sound familiar? It should; it is precisely the same line that the Bush administration used in defense of torture.

[ReRe]

16. Seriously...

K&R

I've heard people this week criticize the Founders, and the Constitution, saying that all that founding business (The Constitution) is old news, outdated, they even called the founding Fathers "Constitutional Fundamentalists"!!!! WTF? I felt like I had stumbled into the wrong website. They complain about those old "Aristocrats" who owned slaves. But let me tell them that yes, they were Aristocrats who owned slaves, but they were very intelligent and enlightened men. They just didn't wake up one morning and write the Constitution and Bill of Rights like it was doodling. They debated, discussed, stopped and fought a war and came back to it. And finally, in 1789, they had a Constitution that they could all agree with, and that they felt would stand the test of time for these United State of America. And the only time we seem to fall down in this country is when we don't honor it. When we don't follow the Constitution. When we don't follow the rule of law that was set down for us all those years ago.

Thank you, markpkessinger, for this OP of "Common Sense".

[ohheckyeah]

17. Well said.

The courts and judges aren't the ones who ultimately decide what is constitutional....it is the American people. Always has been and hopefully always will be.

[TheKentuckian]

18. Exactly right

[Maedhros]

19. It's simply a matter of courage.

Are we courageous enough to embrace our freedom in the face of danger? Or will we scuttle away into the dark corners to hide, hoping Big Daddy Protector in the White House will keep the bad guys at bay?

[MsPithy]

20. Where are the Obamabots?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Blanket capture of all phone and internets data to be stored in a 5 zettabyte facility in Utah, does not seem to be mentioned.

[LondonReign2]

40. They are trying to figure out

how the fact that Snowden had boxes in his garage can be used to discredit this concept

[Safetykitten]

122. Daisy....daisy....

[ConservativeDemocrat]

21. It's right there in the fourth amendment.

If you'd bother to read it.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And guess what? The courts decide is "reasonable" and "unreasonable". Not you. That's what courts are for. That's what the FISA court did.

Not to mention that when you tell a third party, like a phone company, a person to contact on your behalf, that is not your "person, house, paper, or effect".

Seriously, while I know the D.U. would be better named "AntiDemocraticPartyBashingByPeopleTooLeftWingFringeToVoteForDemocrats", I would at least expect you to have a slight modicum of curiosity about:

1] The words written in the Constitution
2] Who the Constitution designates as the highest Court that decides how these words apply to particular situations (hint: it's called the "Supreme Court&quot
3] Some microscopic familiarity with rulings that were made literally fifty years ago, or more, dealing with this. (None of these rulings are remotely new - apparently it's a scandal now because the Black guy is in office, and he's not a whiny self-entitled hipster who thinks everything is Hitler enough, or something.)

Listening to the constant caterwauling, I'm getting more and more sympathy for my moderate GOP friends as they listened in pain to Palin and all the Tea Party loons pretend that they were somehow Constitutional scholars, when, in fact, they were absolute morons determined to invent their own little reality, as they pulled "fact" after "fact" out of their ass.

Are you this guy (http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849)? Basically for most of you, it seems like the answer is "yes".

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[markpkessinger]

23. Actually, the question of what is or is not Constitutional . . .

Last edited Fri Jun 14, 2013, 04:46 AM - Edit history (1)

. . . is not a question determined by a single Court ruling. That determination takes place continually, as prior court holdings are overturned and new ones are issued. Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in public accommodations, was the law of the land from 1896 until 1954, when it was overturned by the decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. The ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick, which upheld the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws only as against gay people, ws in force from 1986 until it was overturned in 2003 by the ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. Ordinary citizens, through their own political activism, play a crucial role in the changes in understanding that cause rulings to eventually be overturned, so the suggestion that it is strictly a matter for the courts and that the public has nothing to say about the matter is ignorant of the way our system works, as well as being ignorant of history.

Oh, how I wish we could reanimate James Madison or John Adams -- I think it would be incredibly amusing to watch you try to convince them that a secret court with no accountability or check, iissuing secret warrants for broad-based surveillance and storage of data concerning the private communications of millions of American citizens for whom there is no reasonable suspicion that they have committed any crime, is somehow consistent with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[LondonReign2]

41. Brilliant

"Oh, how I wish we could reanimate James Madison or John Adams -- I think it would be incredibly amusing to watch you try to convince them that a secret court with no accountability or check, iissuing secret warrants for broad-based surveillance and storage of data concerning the private communications of millions of American citizens for whom there is no reasonable suspicion that they have committed any crime, is somehow consistent with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

[Moonwalk]

71. Um, the same John Adams who passed the Alien and Sedition Act?

From Wiki:

The Sedition Act made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or its officials. Punishments included 2–5 years in prison and fines of up to $5,000. Although Adams had not originated or promoted any of these acts, he nevertheless signed them into law.

Do you really think you couldn't convince Adams about secret warrants for broad-based surveillance and storage of data concerning the private communications of American citizens--if it would root out firebrand aliens that might harm the U.S. government? He was convinced to go against the First Amendment when potential terrorism against the government was involved in his time. Why not the Fourth Amendment if it had related in his time as well?

[Major Hogwash]

46. You speak of the Phucking Phounding Phathers of Philadelphia as if they could envision . .

. . a Black President.

They could not!

So, be careful when you tell anyone else they are "being ignorant of history".

[MsPithy]

55. Bullshit!

The Framers of the Constitution could have enshrined slavery or the subjugation of women in the Constitution, but they didn't. They very deliberately wrote a document that would advance freedoms beyond what was acceptable in their time. My proof is that African Americans and women have won freedoms which are now part of the Constitution. This is exactly what the Framers envisioned.

[WillyT]

56. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

[Major Hogwash]

58. George Washington owned slaves.

350 years of slavery.

[MsPithy]

119. Wow! News flash! People are complicated!

Writing the Constitution was hard. It could have sooo easily blown up into smithereens and we would all be kneeling in front of effing Queen Elizabeth II, to this day!

But, against all odds they succeeded, they established the roadmap for the freedoms we enjoy today. Realistically, what more could we have expected from men of that time?

The existence of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments prove that your childish and idiotic reply is irrelevant.

[DontTreadOnMe]

123. The fact that the we even have any Amendments is proof that the original Constitution is NOT

the final say on all rights, and that is was written with the intent that is CAN BE CHANGED!

If it can be changed, then anything can be changed. It is the majority that gets to decide.

If we leave the changes to be decided by just a few, then we have a problem.

[treestar]

77. Or terror or the atomic bomb!

They wanted it to be flexible for future generations.

And they said unreasonable searches not all searches. So they would have balanced the factors just like today's court would.

[MsPithy]

63. Excellent point about reanimating James Madison or John Adams.

Last edited Fri Jun 14, 2013, 04:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Here's what Rude Pundit had to say,

"The point for people who are upset about the NSA scandal isn't that spying happens. No shit. We know it. The point here is that everyone was spied on. And we're supposed to have rules about that. And who fucking cares if a court approves it? Who cares if a SECRET COURT IS MAKING SECRET RULINGS ON SECRET EVIDENCE THAT SECRETLY LET THE SECRET FINDERS FIND MORE SECRETS IN SECRET?"

The shouting is mine.

I shudder to think what a reanimated Thomas Paine would do if he learned Glen Beck stole the title, Common Sense, for his piece of crap book.

[treestar]

76. It is strictly the courts that decide

They may change over time as society changes, but it is society that has to change, not just the forefront of change. They wouldn't have made a ruling like Brown in 1896 because it was 1896. There may have been some people who realized in 1896 that racial segregation was wrong but you can't just give those people credit for the Brown ruling as if they animated the court of 1954 which had nothing to do with it, or the history before that.

The Courts decide because they are appointed by elected leaders and will reflect the country as a whole, where it is at that time in history.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

85. Madison and Adams already were in favor of a court with no accountability or check

It's called the Supreme Court.

And further, given that all the Founding Fathers were willing to sign a document that enshrined a 3/5ths of a man rule into it (and take Native American lands through force of arms), I'm not exactly sure that anyone should feel obligated to give imprimatur to the idea that they were morally superior, much less believe in the things you imagine they would.

But please, go on. Are you going to pull a Palin now and say that Paul Revere rode to keep the British from taking our machine guns, along with the "private communication" of Americans that are about as private as a Facebook post.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[randome]

28. Keep it real!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[graham4anything]

30. +1. Most reasonable answer of the day.

[reusrename]

32. I just posted my question as a separate OP and would be thrilled if you would comment.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023015548

[reusrename]

31. As I just posted elsewhere, this is rather thin gruel.

I suppose it would be correct, under your thesis, to argue that we legally tortured folks.

How far do want to take this rationalization? Do you have some line you draw somewhere, and if so, is this an arbitrary line that you decide?

Just curious how this works, in your thesis.

edit> I just started a new thread on this question.

[RC]

33. What our government is doing is unreasonable

Not to mention that when you tell a third party, like a phone company, a person to contact on your behalf, that is not your "person, house, paper, or effect".

All the phone company does is notify whomever that you wish to communicate with. After that, the information passed IS your private "person, house, paper, or effect". The phone company is a common carrier. That used to mean something. Proper warrants are, or at least were needed to get at that information. Our government is collecting all that metadata and that private information too - WITHOUT a warrant.

And as for the government collecting all this information, it IS UNreasonable! They have no legitimate need for it. This data is being mined for what they deem as possible "subversives", i.e., people that are not compliant enough. People that might derail their schemes of total control.
Terrorism? This country is the worlds biggest and worst terrorist. NSA, FISA and that ilk was set up in part, to make sure that continues.

Your Reality? Sure, whatever you say.

[cascadiance]

35. So why has the Patriot act in effect made them NOT reasonable by tearing down FISA and warrants?

So that private industry contractors can spy on us and just CLAIM it is reasonable! Anyone can do that. Perhaps the terrorists in Boston felt their actions were "reasonable" from their point of view. That doesn't make them that way from most Americans' point of view nor would most other bodies of law enforcement feel that they were "reasonable" if they knew about them in advance.

The NSA and other PTB's efforts in keeping this crap secret is a TESTAMENT as to why it is unreasonable. If it was reasonable, they would have admitted they were doing this a long time ago. That they haven't shows that most Americans feel that this type of spying is UNREASONABLE and would have had such a program shut down as not being constitutional or following the 4th amendment.

[Prospero1]

42. You highlighted "unreasonable"...

but you ignore what follows: and no Warrants shall issue, but upon POBABLE CAUSE, supported by Oath or affirmation, and PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SIEZED.

A warrant for everyone's records, without probable cause, is certainly unreasonable and violates the 4th.

[treestar]

79. Do a law review article on it

Or a memo for the SCOTUS judges. There have been many cases providing exceptions to the warrant requirement (those searches being deemed reasonable) and many cases arguing whether or not there was probably cause.

A warrant for Verizon's records could be argued the same way.

[MsPithy]

50. ... more caterwauling.

Hard to know where to begin...

You seem to ignore, "... but upon probable cause, ..." It is inconceivable that the Framers would agree that capturing all phone calls and the whole internets, meets the standard of reasonable searches based on probable cause.

Courts decide on the basis of cases. Until now, no one has had standing to bring a case against secret, massive data collection. The ACLU filed this case almost immediately, after the release of these documents. Contrary to your claim that the courts have decided massive collection of private data is a reasonable search, this is only the beginning.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-files-lawsuit-challenging-constitutionality-nsa-phone-spying-program

Now, as for this,

"Not to mention that when you tell a third party, like a phone company, a person to contact on your behalf, that is not your "person, house, paper, or effect"."

I would laugh, if this wasn't so sad. Let's just think about this for a minute. Why have law enforcement agencies spent so much time and effort getting warrants to listen to phone conversations, when all along phone calls are not privacy protected by the Constitution? According to you, the FISA court isn't needed, at all.

Very few people are affected by terrorism. Ordinary American crime affects millions, seriously harming people and their property. Why shouldn't every local police department be able to screen every phone call and monitor everyone's internet use? They could solve, or even prevent almost all crime.

I find your characterization of Democrats like me, who care about policy, deeply, DEEPLY offensive.

[kentuck]

53. Until the Supreme Court deems the secret FISA courts unconstitutional...

What then?

[bvar22]

62. You conveniently avoided addressing an important part:

[font size=3]...no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[/font]

What about THAT part?
Did the NSA specifically name the persons or things to be seized in the secret warrant request
from the secret FISA Court that authorized the secret seizing of the personal data from MILLIONS of Verizon customers?

You don't try to hide the fact that you are a conservative,
but do you really believe this is a reasonable search
that complies with the specific prohibitions stated in the 4th Amendment?

Good Rule of Thumb:
People who have to claim that they are "Member(s) of the Reality Based Community",
aren't.

People who ARE Reality Based don't have to advertise that fact,
and the thought to do so would never occur to them.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

100. Actually, I didn't. Because it's a moot point.

The information about who who phoned is known to a corporation, which you apparently imagine to be perfectly angelic and everything. I'll agree for the most part, since I give people the benefit of the doubt. Google just wants to target ads.

Now the government already has the legal ability to compel corporations to reveal all sorts of information. If they didn't our tax system would be unconstitutional. (Hint: it's not.)

So they don't need to issue a Warrant. Only a subpoena - so long as it was approved by a court. Subpoenas are well known legal instruments to get people (more usually corporations) to reveal information, often by the boatload, often phone records. And if you know anything at all about law in this country, and discovery, you'll know that courts generally issue subpoenas at the drop of a hat.

PLEASE NOTE: I have absolutely nothing against people who want the law to change. I will likely respectfully disagree with these people, but hold them in high regard if they are in earnest. But self-appointed Constitutional "scholars" are simply crackpots.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community(*)

(*) Coined originally as a slam against Karl Rove. These days used against crackpots of all stripes, but mostly (in my case) against the GOP crackpots.(**)

(**) If you think my statement is targeting you, it's likely that a little voice of reason is still present.

[bvar22]

108. More embarrassing blather and diversion.

#1 FAIL, Red Herring
What is know or not known to a corporations has absolutely NO Bearing on the 4th Amendment which is a restriction on "Government".

#2 FAIL, Making Stuff Up
"which you apparently imagine to be perfectly angelic and everything"
an outright fabrication from your imagination

#3 FAIL, Posting Outright FALSE Information combined with another Red Herring

"Yesterday, The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald published a classified order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, revealing that the National Security Agency has been collecting call records from every Verizon customer in the United States.

The top secret order, known as a FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) [font size=4]warrant[/font], directs Verizon to provide customer data "on an ongoing daily basis."

(Bold and Underline mine)
http://theweek.com/article/index/245288/did-verizon-have-to-hand-over-your-phone-records

So the quibbling about the difference between a subpoena and a warrant is just another diversion.
clever for a conservative, but not up to the average standards at DU ( or at least back when we had standards) anyway.


&quot **) If you think my statement is targeting you, it's likely that a little voice of reason is still present." ---more fantasy from the imagination

[ConservativeDemocrat]

125. I'm sorry you feel so embarrassed...

...if you would stop saying things embarrassing to yourself, maybe it would stop.

#1 Courts have an entirely different standard when dealing with what third parties know about you compared to your personal effect. In general, third parties can be compelled to reveal what they know. I don't expect you to understand this, seeing as you are unclear on the concept of jurisprudence, but maybe you should read up about it so you can be less embarrassed.

#2 I hold you to your own words, Bvar. You are more "afraid" of data being misused by the big bad "gov'mint" (which has no economic interest in doing so), than you are major corporations which do. Tell me, are you in favor of Privatizing Social Security as well? Get govmint out of your Medicare?

#3 The only FAIL here is that of Sergio Hernandez, who clearly mischaracterized the FISA subpoena as a warrant. I'll let you off the hook for this one because this was the reporter's mistake, but if you look at the actual FISA Court Order being referenced, it is clearly a subpoena.

Here's a basic explanation of the difference:

A subpoena is an order directed to an individual commanding him/her to produce documents in a pending lawsuit or to appear in court on a certain day. A subpoena does not allow the investigator to immediately search and seize any of the records enlisted to be produced.

The records produced by Verizon were never taken from Verizon, and then further checks were made before individual searches for people's records were made. You may disagree with the 51% rule, but it still was an impediment. (Although even then, courts always allow people to read copies of records provided by a subpoena - at least in lawsuits. The "search" referenced above generally refers to a disruptive physical search.)

-C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[sabrina 1]

133. Lol, and what does any of this have to do what actually happened?

The FISA Bill is for Foreign Intelligence only. Any 'gathering of data' on Americans citizens is not covered by that Bill. That means the law was broken IF they have been 'collecting and storing' the personal info of Americans who are not suspected of any crime.

It's really simple, even if you don't care about the Constitution. There is NO law in this country and never was that permitted the Government to spy on its own people, not even a teeny, weeny bit. They have admitted to 'collecting and storing personal info on Americans. What court could issue a warrant for them to do that? NOT FISA, that is only for Foreign Intel.

Second, you seem not to know they have admitted to getting a Warrant, in fact like all people who, when they begin to lie, have to try to cover their tracks, by admitting they got a warrant from the FISA Court, they forgot that no court, and certainly not one set up for the specific purpose of confining all spying to Foreign enemies.

They have not claimed to have asked for a 'subpoena', they have claimed they got a warrant. And the new version of the FISA BILL, designed to protect Bush and his spying telecoms from prosecution, doesn't even require a warrant until AFTER THE FACT. So how then did they produce Probable Cause an absolute, according to the law, necessary requirement to get a warrant in the first place.

Sabrina

Thankfully and proudly NOT a member of the imaginary Reality Based Community, a term invoked to slam Liberal Democrats with by Third Way operatives and 'former Republicans' who used to roam the internets, thinking they were disguising themselves as normal commenters. They became so unpopular because of their sheer nasty, unpleasant and mostly right-wing like blind loyalties, these members of the Reality Based Community, most of them easily exposed as, early on because we dems are not blind, and later admitted to being political operatives, that they have mostly faded into obscurity, their job very badly done!

R.I.P. to a once prominent if ridiculous membership missed by no one!

This has been a public service announcement, you may now return to your previous discussion!

[ConservativeDemocrat]

135. It is clear you didn't take my advice to avoid making shit up...

Last time we had a discussion, you made assertions that you clearly pulled from your posterior, which I then went through and refuted through referenced statements, putting in links to the appropriate wikipedia articles and everything. I suggested that you might be a bit more convincing (to anyone other than the handful of people who already agree with you) if you actually did some research before making wild assertions about 'evil Democrats' that you'd like to be true, even though they're not.

It is clear that you did not take my advice.

So, once again, I need to go through and explain a few basic facts to you.

The FISA Bill is for Foreign Intelligence only. Any 'gathering of data' on Americans citizens is not covered by that Bill. The FISA Bill is for Foreign Intelligence only. Any 'gathering of data' on Americans citizens is not covered by that Bill. That means the law was broken IF they have been 'collecting and storing' the personal info of Americans who are not suspected of any crime.

Laughably false.

From Bush's remarks made on Oct. 26, 2001, about the Anti-Terrorism Bill.

Surveillance of communications is another essential tool to pursue and stop terrorists. The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones. This new law that I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones.

It's really simple, even if you don't care about the Constitution. There is NO law in this country and never was that permitted the Government to spy on its own people, not even a teeny, weeny bit. They have admitted to 'collecting and storing personal info on Americans. What court could issue a warrant for them to do that? NOT FISA, that is only for Foreign Intel.

The "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court" did. Seriously, you didn't read the order itself? It's right here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order

Metadata is collected for all calls in the U.S. and between the U.S. and foreign countries. Understand that the FISA allows examination of any data of foreign nationals regardless of where the call originated, including (or especially) foreign nationals who are already entirely in the U.S. That a call is entirely within the U.S. does not mean that it cannot be examined. It's who is making it that's important, legally speaking.

You would do a much better job arguing that the efficacy of terrorism reduction for the cost of the NSA is not worth it, but I think I'll likely have that (considerably more difficult) conversation with someone who is an actual adult, at least emotionally speaking. Dealing with your persistent invention of "fact" to fit your argument, childish name calling, and inability to either learn or show shame from the previous proverbial "spankings" you got from previous run ins with the fact checks I've done on your statements, is tiring, and at this point I don't think I respect you enough to be convinced by anything you are likely to say.


- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community(*)

(*) A slam against Karl Rove and his assertion that they "create their own reality", although to be fair, this can apply to crackpots and kooks of all political stripes.

/ "You have about 49% crackpots in your party, we have only 10." - Howard Dean to a Republican:

[treestar]

74. That Onion piece is great.

Really captures what we have going on here!

[agent46]

80. C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Exactly which reality based community do you belong to? Do you people have potluck dinners and a softball team? Are you all deathly afraid of terra-ists and willing to hand over your sovereignty to a huge network of hundreds of quasi-governmental intelligence gathering corporations?

Please think for just a moment about how the real world works. You don't seem to have factored into your "reality base" that seventy percent of the intelligence gathering going on now is carried out by private corporations, contractors and foreign governmental agencies in cooperation with corporatist ideologues in our own government.

We've been told the government isn't listening in. Well that's a damn relief - and well then, who is? You seem to have no awareness at all of how backroom deals and private undocumented alliances without oversight lead to consolidation of power outside the purview of ordinary citizens.

Is your reality based community prepared to keep whistling past your reality based graveyard?

[Swede Atlanta]

90. You are technically correct......

that the relevant court of competent jurisdiction determines the reasonableness of the government's requests under the 4th Amendment.

That said, the structure of the FISA court, its inner workings, etc. are SECRET. The American people have almost no visibility into the composition of the court, how members are selected or assigned, the mechanisms for MEANINGFUL oversight, etc.

From most of what we have learned for the past 20-25 years the FISA court has essentially rubber stamped anything the government has requested. Because we don't know what the legislation creating the FISA court says in terms of mission, authority, discretion, etc. there could be a rubber-stamp provision in it.

Do you really think that the government gets it right in terms of reasonable requests over 99% of the time? I think if the FISA court actually considered the facts of the case and used independent judgment we would see a much higher percentage of denials.

It is time that we the American people talk about what is reasonable. I don't want that discussion to be limited to a clandestine group of secret judges who are not accountable to ANYONE. Congress has no effective oversight of them either.

[TomClash]

98. Except . . .

Under the Patriot Act, no showing of probable or even reasonable cause is necessary when the USG seeks a pen registry or trap and trace warrant before the FISA court. That's one reason why the NSA has such broad powers and we are having this discussion. That seems to violate the 4th Amendment.

Without Snowden and others like him, would we know if the NSA conducted even more intrusive searches of ever greater numbers of people, like moderate members of the GOP or conservative Democrats? Somehow I doubt it.

[sibelian]

102. The courts decide is "reasonable" and "unreasonable"

Oh, is that so?

[iemitsu]

22. I applaud your post and agree with what you say but

I would like add one thing. It is the government's job to protect us, not by taking our rights away (which doesn't work anyway), but by administering our country in a fashion that does not increase our level of threat. Our policies ought to curry friendship not enemies.
It is the decisions that Congress and the President, and the uber-elite who control them, make that puts Americans at risk. Corporate control of our government is the threat. The phone logs of congress would likely uncover the source of all the awful legislation and foreign policy decisions that have resulted in a violent world where some victims of our policies might want to hurt us.
And they want to spy on us as if we were the problem?

[markpkessinger]

24. Thank you -- an excellent addendum! n/t

[thesquanderer]

25. Where are the guys who said "give me liberty or give me death?"

Oh yeah... they're dead.

[treestar]

81. There are some people who would rather die than have the government

subpoena Verizon's records under FISA, I suppose, but where are they?

[xtraxritical]

26. The only terrorists around here are the cops!

[MNBrewer]

27. The Classified One

[graham4anything]

29. Which amendment says specifically, bullets and today's guns and stand your ground is legal?

and militia meant national guard til Heller

and guns meant cannons and not the thingys used today

[hughee99]

43. I think you are misunderstanding how the bill of rights works...

It was designed to lay out what the government can't do, not to try to list all the things that are legal for people to do.

I'm sure Hillary Clinton will fix this when she's elected in 2016, though, or perhaps Mrs. Obama will when she's elected in 2024, or Chelsea Clinton in 2032, or Malia in 2040 or, Sasha in 2048.

[oldhippie]

52. You're right .....

.... and a lot of other things.

[hughee99]

54. Just playing to G4A's love of heredity rule. n/t

[pmorlan1]

34. The Fight for Freedom is Joined

Anyone who is on Twitter/Facebook, etc. I hope you will post this excellent thread. Some of our fellow Democrats who are lost in their blind unprincipled partisanship mode need to see more and more of us call them on it. We have to do whatever we can to bring them to their senses because we need everyone involved in this fight including any allies we might find in other parties. Any other good threads you see do the same. Now is not the time to stand on the sidelines.

[mzteris]

37. You've got to be kidding me...

Or maybe you have other motives...

How Dare you question The thoughts, beliefs feelings and belittle intelligence of other duers by claiming they are "blind and unprincipled"?!?

While there may be disagreement, these people are principled and certainly not blind. Interpretations may differ, but you cannot call into question their commitment to the Democratic Part and democracy as a whole. I dare say many of hose "blind" people have far greater knowledge of the Constitution and the law than you do. No, I'm not suggesting I do as I don't even know you -your being so new and AlLL.

I am torn on this issue, granted. But what really irritates me is the faux poutrage that this is all some new thing. It, or something like it, has been around since civilization began. This particular "scandal" has been public knowledge for decades. Why the sudden OMG we're all gonna get eavesdropped and die mentality? it's just silly.

And does anyone here really believe we're all at risk? Do people here think they are personally being "monitored"? Then they're paranoid and/or delusional as to their sense of their own importance. Or they've done some terribly wrong, egregious, or just plain stupid NAND should be checkled out.

Do you guys really think the NSA FBI CIA -and any of those other agencies we don't even know exists - are I interested in seeing cute cat pictures, your score on FarmVille, who did what to whom, some pithy saying repost, or what you had for lunch!?!? or what passes for learned discussion on a message board? Seriously? Then all I can say in cannot to that belief is .

And don't even go with that slippery slope, omg the republicans might do argument (psst hey already did? I'm all for bipartisanship, but why don't we all worry and do something about about the budget and jobs and homes, and equal rights for ALL, poverty, education, the travesty that is the penal system. The rampant institutionalized patriarchal white supremacist racist and homophobic attitude that permeates our country and affects every individual in this country. Instead of hand-wring over the properly approved investigation of those suspected of wanting to inflict great harm. Hell, I say we bug the hell out of white supremacist "American citizens". They are as big a threat as any foreign terrorist. Maybe even more so.

[markpkessinger]

94. Seriously?

You write:

Do you guys really think the NSA FBI CIA -and any of those other agencies we don't even know exists - are I interested in seeing cute cat pictures, your score on FarmVille, who did what to whom, some pithy saying repost, or what you had for lunch!?!? or what passes for learned discussion on a message board? Seriously? Then all I can say in cannot to that belief

Do you really think that's what we're concerned about -- our stupid little exchanges of trivia? Even if you are prepared to place absolute, unequivocal trust in this administration not to abuse the information being collected, what assurance do you have that a future one will not do so? What is to prevent some future administration (of whatever party) from deciding that, say, certain types of political organizing, constitute aiding or abetting terrorism? With a secret court issuing secret rulings on secret warrants for secret surveillance, there is little, if anything, from preventing such a thing from occurring. And I'm sorry, you cannot just blithely dismiss that possibility. (Well, maybe you can, but many of us cannot.)

[mzteris]

109. I'm only blithely dismissing

the poutrage that this is some new thing. That a good deal of those so concerned about their, wouldn't warrant a second look, much less a first.

Can this be abused? Of course. It HAS been abused in the past. And people run stop signs and red lights, too. People commit crimes. And people blow up buildings. If it's abused, it's criminal. McCarthy was brought down as was J Edgar eventually. Now if we can just rid of these damn fundies and lala land teabaggers and whackadoodle libertarians. . . but it's only going to happen if we vote the right people into office. House, Senate, State level, too, and Local council, school board, etc.

If you don't have faith in the American system of governance overall then why are you still here? There have been good times and very very bad in the running of this Country. Good leaders and complete idiots. Yet we're still here.

The lunatics take over the asylum only when we LET them. Work for change. Don't whine on a message board.

[treestar]

83. Is this intrusion on your freedom

enough that you are willing to die for it? "Give me liberty or give me death?" Is that that serious an intrusion on your liberty?

[malaise]

36. Excellent post

Rec

[Zorra]

38. I think it's called the Patriot Amendment. Or something like that. nt

[DearHeart]

121. Just fyi...the Patriot Act is not an amendment to the Constitution.

It is a law and that had a sunset date; however, it has been renewed a couple of times and is set to expire next in 2015.

[link:http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html|

[Zorra]

124. lol! I know that very well; my post was intended as sardonic humor.

[hughee99]

39. The founders wrote a special FISA-type version of the constitution, that we're not allowed to see.

We can trust elected officials and secret courts to make sure that version is being followed.

[suston96]

44. Dunno much about "subordinate".......

But what follows is in the Constitution and it "ordinates" the establishment of the United States and the framework - repeat: FRAMEWORK of government required to establish how and why the United States were ordained into a nation:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What then follows, I repeat, is only a FRAMEWORK or structure of government, guided by principles and practices of those days and the good sense and inspirations when the Constitution was written by the blessed Founders.

You won't find the precise words and phrases that cover every detail of the government operations to date.

That's NOT what Constitutions do!

[AndyA]

45. All of the Amendments are subject to subordination, interpretation, bending just a bit...

...except for the Second Amendment, of course. THAT one must not be touched, period!

The founders would be marching on Washington if they were still alive today.

[OnyxCollie]

47. It's under the Amendment

which allows the Executive to skip due process and assassinate US citizens based on suspicion of terrorism, and above the Amendment which allows the Executive to detain US citizens indefinitely.

[woo me with science]

120. +100000000000000000

[indepat]

48. Until the Congress has taken every plausible step to constitutionally keep safe us from gun

violence, the keeping us safe from terra meme has no plausibility or validity.

[gtar100]

49. If they didn't suspend Constitutional rights, they'd have to face a truth they do not want to

acknowledge. And that is that we (the US) put ourselves in danger of terrorism by abusing the rights of others. It is our military actions and US corporate business tactics that drive people to desperate measures. If we treated others with respect and fairness, my guess is that terrorism would be greatly minimized, if not eliminated. But there would probably be far fewer billionaires in this world as well. I could live with that but apparently others feel differently.

[Maedhros]

59. Bruce Cockburn came up with a nice lyric that examines this phenomenon

To paraphrase: [Terrorism is] "The only response to the deification of tyranny by so-called 'developed' nations' idolatry of ideology." (from Call it Democracy).

[FiveGoodMen]

96. A great and insightful tune.

[Catherina]

51. Excellent post. Just scroll down to the bottom where it says "Kissinger Amendment" n/t

[timdog44]

57. Finally, someone

has come forward with a solution to all this spying. Don't spy, PERIOD. At least that is what I am seeing. This would have to go hand in glove with the policies we have fomented in countries other than the United States. Our foreign policies are atrocious. We have created the terrorists by our wars and aggressions. We need to get out of every country in the world and concentrate on our own country. The corporatists can move out, renounce their citizenship (as they have not a patiotic bone in their bodies) and run their companies in Bangladesh, Indonesia, and all the other 3rd world countries. And then we need to isolate our selves from the globalization that has ruined our economy. Then we would not need surveillance any more. Solved.

[Myrina]

60. Best essay ever. Thank you.

[TommyCelt]

64. This...

This RIGHT HERE.

[Fire Walk With Me]

65. K&R!

Ted Rall's intro to his new comic said that Americans are more concerned with the need to feel comfortable than free. Hit that self-interest button; it works every time!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. The one that has yet to be leaked.

[ybbor]

67. Hear, hear

Great Post!

I have made the exact same argument on many occasions since 9/11. It has most certainly pissed off many to whom I made it. They cannot stop feeling that it is the government's job to protect us citizens from our what our freedom makes us susceptible. Our Liberties are so much more important than our safety.

[carolinayellowdog]

68. the Cheney-Bush amendment

of September 11, 2001.

[azmom]

69. How much

freedom are we willing to give up for some level of protection?

[treestar]

72. They didn't have these problems in 1787

What are you talking about, the Smith v. Maryland case that found the FISA constitutional?

[elleng]

73. 'The “general welfare” clause is mentioned twice in the U.S. Constitution,

first, in the preamble and second, it is found in Article 1, Section 8.

The preamble reads: “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution refers to the “general welfare” thus: “The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .”

The preamble clearly defines the two major functions of government: (1) ensuring justice, personal freedom, and a free society where individuals are protected from domestic lawbreakers and criminals, and; (2) protecting the people of the United States from foreign aggressors.'

http://www.lawandliberty.org/genwel.htm

[markpkessinger]

75. Legally, there is no prior protectio from criminal acts n/t

[elleng]

82. Maybe/Maybe not:

1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.
4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a crime to squander our country's natural resources.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Criminal+act

[treestar]

84. Yes. There must be some balance between the extremes

The freepers who don't care how much power a Republican President has in order to protect us from terrorists or calls us soft on terror if we criticize the government having endless powers and the people who would have no spies, cops or searches and just let the terror attacks happen as they may.

[GoneFishin]

111. I am not familar with the latter position, if you can think of the name of the person that made

that second argument let me know.

[treestar]

115. It follows with the ones who think all leaks are good

And all leakers heroes, no matter what they might have exposed.

[markpkessinger]

114. Wow - Standing up for the Bill of Rights is now an "extreme" position . . .

. . . and on a Democratic site, no less. Wow. Just . . . wow.

BTW, you did see, didn't you, where the NSA has now admitted to LISTENING IN on telephone conversations without a warrant?

I rest my case.

[treestar]

116. those are your labels

who are you to make your arguments so inherently right, that questioning you allows you to label a person as not "standing up for the Bill of Rights." Wow, just wow. You consider yourself the ultimate authority on everything. We ought to just be in lockstep with you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. Ye of little faith

They can fix that.

I wish I were kidding

[glinda]

86. Clarity. Thank you. Kick!

[blkmusclmachine]

87. .

.

[blkmusclmachine]

88. The Constitution is being held hostage.

Feel safer now?

[1-Old-Man]

91. Very well said.

[FiveGoodMen]

93. Obviously, there isn't any such amendment

Trampling the constitution is only done by those who think it's just "a goddamned piece of paper."

Like GW Bush.

And Obama.

[markpkessinger]

95. Indeed n/t

[rhett o rick]

97. Well that's a long post but you apparently dont understand that the terrorist will get us

if we still believe in that silly old Constitution. The terrorist will get us.

[graham4anything]

101. Where in the constitution does it say Zimmy can shoot a kid coward style and it would have not even

been charged, were it not for the great Al Sharpton and the family of Mr. Martin, whose son was murdered in cold blood in the same town that forced Jackie Robinson to flee 70 years ago when a violent mob came after him.

When Jefferson said all MEN (but not women or minorities) were created equal was the time the constiutiton was 100% meaningless.
Equal? When. And the 2nd takes away 100% of every right of anyone shot with a gun and a bullet.

Yes, the constitution was really not worth much to 82% of the democratic party ever.
Because 82% were NEVER considered a part of it (and come on, the crux of everything since the 3rd greatest President of all time
(after Lincoln and LBJ) was inaugurated 1/17.2009 has been because of that, and that the next President will be Hillary45.)

It is about nothing more than that.

Tell me something-
which amendment says women are equal? That was ratified, wasn't it? And what year was that?
52% of the 325 million people in America.

Yet, Zimmy from Florida can shoot someone coward style, and that is (unless a jury says otherwise) 100% legal because
of the 2nd saying that is legal.

Ain't life great in America.

btw, the 1950s were NOT a good time in America for 82% of the democratic party. Far, far from it.

[rhett o rick]

107. Did you miss my sarcastic intent? nm

[cherokeeprogressive]

113. Pass the Ranch, please.

I prefer Ranch dressing on my word salad. And please don't go easy on the freshly ground black pepper.

Ranch dressing and lots of freshly ground black pepper... mmm mmm nothing makes a word salad better than that.

[NorthCarolina]

99. The 'Oligarchy' clause...

it must be in there some place.

[Democracyinkind]

105. The cost of freedom

Shays' rebellion, the whskey rebellio, alien and sedition act.

It's not as if the founders didn't face the same dilemma and made the same compromises.

Balancing freedom and security has been done since the very first administration, no matter what the contituion is thought to say.

[thefool_wa]

110. It's kinda like looking for that part

That says we have the right to keep and bear arms unless X many people die from them.

[Eleanors38]

112. "Security" appears in the Second Amendment, but it is no irony...

Security of a free state contemplates a systemic breakdown, insurrection and foreign invasion which a standing army may not be capable of resisting. The federal government is charged in Article I with calling out the militia, and must protect the broader "...peoples' right to keep and bear arms..." (Clearly, that right is an individual right as the militia, if called out, must consist of persons bearing arms suitable for the times, in proper condition, and with the bearer having knowledge of how to use the arm -- the common interpretation of "well-regulated&quot . Further, the right is no more a "communal right" than the Fourth is a communal right because it also is couched in terms of the "People." No right in the BOR is expressed in any other manner than "individual."

The police (local or otherwise) are not charged with protecting an individual. They are charged with investigating crimes, collecting evidence, apprehending suspects and presenting their findings to a prosecutor. The police cannot in any practical way protect people unless they are on the scene at the time of a crime, a rare occasion. This again underwrites the Second as an individual right (the Constitution does not explicitly say what a citizen can do with that right, and that is the whole point). It only references a specific duty of the federal government to secure a free state as outlined in the Articles.

The Second recognizes "security" from the day-to-day needs of individuals under threat by criminals, all the way up through insurrection to the more global threat of invasion. There is no guarantee that security (through self-defense or through successful resistance to subjugation) will be successful, only that the right itself is guaranteed.

I enjoyed your essay, it is something that needed to be said.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

117. Ask Congress

they have some explaining to do

[gulliver]

126. There isn't one, and the Constitution was very obviously not subordinated.

Members of Congress were informed, and most importantly for the Constitution, court orders were used. Done.

The courts interpret the Constitution and determine whether it was subordinated. If they say it wasn't, then, by definition, it wasn't.

[hoodunit]

127. Thank you for this excellent exposition, I just joined the Du because my friend in St Louis sent me

and it resonated with me! I am a lifelong (50+ year voter) Democrat but I am not a hidebound ideologue.

[markpkessinger]

129. Thank you and welcome! n/t

[Rhiannon12866]

134. Welcome to DU, hoodunit!

It's great to have you with us!

[grasswire]

128. Safety was elevated to #1 priority for PROFITS, not for safety's sake

Akin to the War On Some Drugs and the prison-industrial complex, where the "cause" was simply a reason for looting the treasure of the American people, in terms of trillions of dollars.

You will notice that recent presidents state regularly that their highest purpose is to "keep the American people safe" -- ignoring their oath of office.

[markpkessinger]

130. Precisely! n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

131. I suggest an omnibus/blanket amendment to the constitution.

This amendment simply inserts a phrase at the end of every other amendment. "... unless you're really scared."

[markpkessinger]

132. LOL! n/t

[brett_jv]

136. The reason phone call CONTENT is considered 'covered' under the 4th is because of the Courts ...

Obviously, there were no phones at the time the Constitution was written. Therefore, there was a time in our history since our Constitution was written, when the question arose: "Are our phone conversations OUR 'property, effect, papers, etc', such that they would be covered/protected under the 4th?"

As a matter of fact, for 40 years, between Olmstead and Katz (from the 20's to the 60's, IOW), PHONE CALLS COULD BE WIRETAPPED, without a friggin' warrant, and used against you in Court!

From Chief Justice WH Taft in Olmstead:
"The amendment itself shows that the search is to be of material things - the person, the house, his papers or his effects. The amendment does not forbid what was done here for there was no seizure. The evidence was secured by the sense of hearing and that only. There was not entry of the houses. The language of the amendment cannot be extended and expanded. Since the evidence was a conversation and no entry was made into Olmstead's home, there was therefore no violation of his rights against unreasonable search and seizure."


People really need to understand that these matters concerning what constitutes 'your property/effects/papers' have always been in flux, always been debated, and have always been subject to CHANGE. The matter of telephone meta-data is one of those things that's simply NOT BEEN DECIDED upon YET one way or the other. I don't know offhand, but I suspect emails aren't decided upon either, esp. if you're using email servers that are offered for free by some corporation like Yahoo or MS.

Please try to keep in mind that at least SOME of us 'evil folks' here on DU that y'all accuse of just being dogmatic Obama nob-buffers or 'plants' or whatever other nasty names suits you in the moment are REALLY just trying to point out ... what I mentioned above.

There IS A LEGIT QUESTION involved that remains unsettled here. Is the gathering our phone-call meta-data in bulk, without our names, by the government, actually in violation of the 4th Amendment? This is a VALID question, and given that it's not be SPECIFICALLY deemed as covered under the 4th by the Courts (just as our phone conversations were not even deemed to be covered by the 4th for like FORTY (40) friggin YEARS!), the NSA is taking advantage of the lack of a decision that specifically forbids it.

It's this simple ... this crap, that NONE OF US 'likes' ... has to be decided, either by a Law, or by a High Court decision, and the 'proprietors', if you will, of these sorts of data (anything that is not specifically one's 'house/papers/effects) must be SPECIFICALLY DEEMED as 'the ones making the calls' in order for this data to be 'covered' under the 4th. Otherwise, it simply ISN'T ... covered by the 4th. That's the reality of the situation. It's clearly debatable as to whether this data concerning our phone calls (without our names attached) constitutes our 'homes, papers, effects'. JUST like it was regarding the contents of our phone calls for a long period in our history.

We first must work towards getting our telephony meta-data to be deemed by law or court as being 'officially ours' ... otherwise, just as was the case between Olmstead and Katz, when friggin WIRETAPS of our phones without warrant was legal ... this data is simply not considered 'ours' by law, and hence, we really have no recourse.

What many of us 'apologists' are trying to point out is that we feel it's time to stop 'bashing Obama' for stuff that really ain't 'his responsibility', and instead hammering our Congress-critters to produce a law that says our telephone meta-data IS OUR 'HOMES/PAPERS/EFFECTS' (and lets throw in our emails, chats, and the like), so we at least have a LEGAL 'leg to stand on' when we complain about this shit. Because as it stands now, we really DON'T. Y'all can have your tantrums and call fellow Democrats nasty names for not 'seeing things how you see them' all day long, but you're just tilting at windmills 'til such laws/decisions come down.

That shit ain't covered under the 4th until a law or court case SAYS they are. You don't get to just say 'this is my property, and the Gubmint collecting it is ILLEGAL under the 4th, and constitutes SPYING on ME!'.

Well, you CAN, but that won't make it so, no matter how many names you call people, how big of a tantrum you throw, or how much paranoid hyperbole you resort to ... and as such, sorry, but not everyone's going to agree on this point.