Posted on 04/19/2014 2:49:04 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Thursday in an interview conducted at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg talked about their views of the First Amendment. Moderator Marvin Kalb questioned Scalia about whether the NSA wiretapping cloud be conceivably be in violation of the Constitution:
Justice Antonin Scalia said, "No because it's not absolute. As Ruth has said there are very few freedoms that are absolute. I mean your person is protected by the Fourth Amendment but as I pointed out when you board a plane someone can pass his hands all over your body that's a terrible intrusion, but given the danger that it's guarding against it's not an unreasonable intrusion. And it can be the same thing with acquiring this data that is regarded as effects. That's why I say its foolish to have us make the decision because I don't know how serious the danger is in this NSA stuff, I really don't."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Whether it’s the Patriot Act, NDAA, NSA spying, the IRS, or whomever, government intrusion into our fundamental rights is wrong, illegal, and unconstitutional.
The unreasonable search and seizure isn’t the relevant provision; the ban on general warrants is, and that is unambiguous, and absolute.
They both claim that that is the reason they went up the hill. Do we have any independent corroboration of that? Or could they have gone up the hill for another reason. A reasonable person would not expect to find a well there.
“Whether its the Patriot Act, NDAA, NSA spying, the IRS, or whomever, government intrusion into our fundamental rights is wrong, illegal, and unconstitutional.”
Easy to say now, but a vast majority of the people supported them and their reps enacted them. All of those bureaucratic agencies are part of the system now. How many conservatives loved the Patriot Act when they thought they had it all figured out? The big gubmint folks (libtards and neocons alike) are taking it one step further.
Said so at the time. I don’t really think a majority supported them. They were passed without much, if any, opportunity to comment or to look at what was provided for.
Scalia: Governmental listening to private conversations does not apply to the persons, houses, papers, and effects protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by the 4th Amendment. So Scalia is saying that government doesnt have to have to show any particular reason, certainly not a probable-cause reason, to listen in on private conversations.
Me: Not sure I agree with that. Here is where I think Scalia is weak and conflicts, IMO, with the original-intent approach of constitutional scholar Judge Robert Bork when Scalia uses the letter of the text to trump original intent. If original intent and understanding may be reasonably suspected to conflict with the text per se, especially in the current usage of the word(s), a good-faith effort should be made to uncover original intent and understanding. Here, that effort might very well show that something in persons, houses, papers, or effects that may have in fact included governmental listening to private conversations.
Examples:
secure in your houses could certainly include wiretapping
secure in your papers or effects may very well have been intended to include private communications.
IMO, the Constitutional issue in the NSA case is not the level of threat, but whether the NSA has probable cause and whether a warrant would be required (usually required for a house search).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.