Replies

An interesting point, but it's one that misses the target, I'm afraid.

Despite my disagreement with the founders on this subject, the Constitution authorizes the President to suspend Habeas Corpus in cases of rebellion...etc. In fact, the Constitution speaks writ large on the subject by defining habeas corpus as a "privilege," not a "right." The former means it can clearly be taken away, and that is with the legitimate power of government. Of course, I think the founders erred on this subject, but it is what it is.

The 4th Amendment, though, is more clear.

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.

Notice the terms "shall not be violated" and "but upon probable cause." It doesn't say "no warrants shall be issued but upon the government thinking it would be a good idea to search a person's house." It further goes on to narrow the government's power even more--it is clear that there is NO power but what is given to the government in the text of the amendment.

But what really disturbed me is a quote from the article that implies the Patriot Act violates the 4th Amendment, but it was upheld anyway.

"We think the procedures and government showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant standards, certainly come close," the judges wrote in their ruling, which was partially declassified and published.

I find this the most disturbing quote in the whole article. Apparently the judicial system is now playing horseshoes with our constitutional rights; close enough is good enough? You've got to be kidding.