No. It is not constitutional, when viewed under the constitution.
Well, then in spite of you thinking they can’t deny you your constitutional rights, they are. Not sure which is worse - to just out-and-out ignore the Constitution, or to couch it in terms of “National Emergency”.
Reminds me of an old FR thread about FDR and the New Deal. And while the “emergency” then was the economy, the same ideas of creating an “emergency” to take more and more control of something (our information in this case) holds true:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2185147/posts
An excerpt:
In his inaugural address, March 4, 1933, the President declared that the people had “asked for discipline and direction under leadership”; that he would seek to bring speedy action “within my Constitutional authority”;...but in the event that the national emergency is still critical... I shall ask Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis — broad executive power to make war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”
It is true that people wanted action. It is true that they were in a mood to accept any pain-killer, and damn the normal balance of authority between the executive and legislative authority. That was an emotional state of mind perfectly suited to a revolutionary purpose, and the President took advantage of it to make the first startling exposition of New Deal philosophy. Note his assertion of the leadership principle over any other. Discipline under leadership. Note the threat to Congress — “in the event that Congress shall fail.” But who was to say if the Congress had failed? The leader, of course....
So, what the New Deal really intended to do...with war powers if necessary, was to reorganize and control the “whole economic and therefore the whole social structure of the country.”
Anything enacted or practiced that is loathsome to the Constitution is treason, inside the Republic, or outside of it via treaty.