Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How exactly is the NSA's monitoring unconstitutional? What will be the argument of the lawyers fighting for our privacy?
While I don't know how the lawyers will argue the case, my guess would be that their argument may have something to do with the massive violation of the 4th Amendment.
Quote:
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
While email, phone calls, and internet activity aren't specifically mentioned in the 4th (for obvious reasons), it can easily be argued that the collection and examination of communications and information which were believed to be private by a government entity which had no reasonable cause for that collection and examination is a direct violation of the 4th Amendment.
How exactly is the NSA's monitoring unconstitutional? What will be the argument of the lawyers fighting for our privacy?
I have no idea what LAWYERS are going to argue.
But, here's my argument:
Congress is granted the power to tax and spend money to ensure the federal government is whole and sound, and a list of about 42 more items. Nowhere in this list is any authority to spy on the public's private financial actions.
Further, Amendment 4 says that the people shall be secure in their homes, property, and effects, and that nobody and nothing shall be searched, except by warrant, and warrants shall only be issued that describe PRECISELY that which is wanted, and justified by probable cause.
It is simply inescapable that the entirety of the CFPB and every purpose for it, is unconstitutional.
How exactly is the NSA's monitoring unconstitutional? What will be the argument of the lawyers fighting for our privacy?
Glenn Greenwald, the man writing the articles for the Guardian based on the information leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden, is a Constitutional lawyer so it may be wise to ask him.
Is leaked classified evidence admissible, though?
Can we prove the NSA's actions?
Very much so. The ACLU initially filed suit in 2008 and just this February it was rejected by the US Supreme Court (in a 5-4 decision) on the issue of standing, not the merits. Here's the issues of that case in a nutshell:
The ACLU represented several groups who engage in the types of communications that the Patriot Act authorized our government to spy on via the NSA. The ACLU argued the NSA spy programs authorized under the Patriot Act were in and of themselves unconstitutional.
However, none of these groups or the ACLU had actual proof that they were being spied on in the manner the Patriot Act allowed for them to be spied on - the reason being such records, if such spying was being done, are classified.
The 5 Justices in the majority said there was no standing to bring a suit since there was no proof they were actually being spied upon. The 4 Justices in the minority said that shouldn't be a barrier to challenging the Constitutionality of the spying programs. They argued that requiring such proof would effectively create a wall such that an action of the government that could very well be unconstitutional could never be challenged in court (seeing as how the proof was classified and unattainable). (want to take any guesses at to which court members came down on which side?)
Well, then came Snowden. He released the proof. Now that there is proof that these groups were spied on in this manner, they now have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the the spying programs in court. The ACLU has since refiled the lawsuit (well, they actually filed it on their behalf, not the groups initially in the lawsuit, because it turns out the ACLU itself was spied on).
Last edited by hammertime33; 09-14-2013 at 03:47 PM..
I don't know enough about our judges to make that guess.
It broke down the Liberal/Conservative line with Kennedy being the swing vote: (Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan) - Kennedy - (Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Scalia).
So who do you think said we have the right to challenge the Constitutionality of the government NSA spy programs - the liberals or the conservatives?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
