Find, if you will, where the bill of rights mentions the word "privacy". It doesn't mention wiretapping or phone conversations, because there weren't wires or phones. Even if it did, we can change it as we like.

I still have questions about the wiretapping. While I don't like the idea any more than anyone else, I have to question whether what Bush was doing was truly unConstitutional. After all, he at least arguably was doing it under the authority of Congress, and it seems to me, with so much commerce being conducted over phone lines, the commerce clause could be invoked on interstate/international calls. At least, that makes sense to me.

That's true. It all comes back to Congress and the people of the US. But the courts do have a lot of power to change things.

Of course, if this woman who ruled this way went back to the constitution, I wonder where she'd find judicial review in there. Now who's playing with a power not in the constitution?

No terrorists have been set free yet. I hope it stays that way, but IF they are caught by unconstitutional means, then they will go free when it's ruled so. That's all I was saying, there are no examples. Yet.

Now, because it's foreign wiretaps, I'm pretty sure she doesn't have a leg to stand on anyway. So all the millions of US citizens who have been cited as spied upon were calling abroad? I hate it when news stories leave out material facts like that. How am I supposed to be well informed reading their paper if they don't tell me the whole truth? I should've waited for somebody else to post about this who knew what they were talking about... but I guess to all the informed people, it was not blogworthy. I guess I just thought it was a bigger deal than it is. Especially since it was such a crummy ruling, as Dr. Guy and Baker think. I don't know what resource to use to look up judicial opinions.

No, you did the right thing and asked a question. You admitted you didn't understand. Other people go off the deep end and rant to the heavens and smear without really CARING if they have the whole story or not.

As for the foreign thing, activist wastes like the ACLU were sticking out their bottom lip because they felt they were being prevented from being able to talk to suspected terrorists in foreign countries. After all, doesn't everyone like a nice conversation with suspected al qaeda members? The thing is, they COULD talk to them.

They could talk to them until their faces turned blue. They just had to accept that people might be listening. I really, really can't imagine any human naive enough in the 21st century not to assume that everything they whisper in their closet isn't being heard by someone.

As for rulings, this is a good place to look for opinions that cite the actual facts. I don't always agree with the leaning there, but you do see the cases dealt with on their merits, and you do generally get links to the actual ruling itself. Don't feel bad, it isn't a bad blog.

P.S. Here is a link to the page that links the ruling in question. You can read what she thought touched upon constitutional rights, but in the end that is just talk. The meat of her decisions is simply that because there is no legislative or constitutional base for the power, the power doesn't exist. So a power that doesn't exist doesn't have oversight, so boo-hoo to Bush. In the end, all they have to do is revise some law and it will be fine.

Thanks for the replies, Mr. Street, Mr. MacLeish, and Dr. Guy. I do believe I'm better at accounting than politics.(one can hope, at least)

Thank you for the link, I'll check that out. I have an interest in law, especially Constitutional law, but I rarely get the chance to exercise that interest.

I went to the link, and I got about 22 pages into the 44 page decision before I couldn't go on anymore. Oh well, maybe I'll read that part later.

I don't see why people think this ruling is a big deal, they'll just appeal it in higher courts anyway.

They glom onto it as they see it as a defeat of Bush.  If not for that, it would be page 7.

BTW:  Congrats to Jytheir!  You got a feature!

Very happy to be on the front page with something not kissing up to JU.

Very happy to be on the front page with something not kissing up to JU.

Actually, those that do, dont get there.  But good thought thinking articles do!

Actually, my first feature was such an article. I was very sad that other articles of mine were unworthy, and that that article was I thought I had a winner with Balancing Persistent Worlds (I can advertise my own blog on my own articles, right?) but nay.

Balancing Persistent Worlds (I can advertise my own blog on my own articles, right?)

yes you can!  I did not see that one, but some of mine that I thought were good never got there.  Hey!  Brad is human.  He likes what he likes and such.  And we play on his dime, so I do not fault him.

Me either, but I had written that one to appeal to his techno-sensors.

The domestic phone tapping issue comes back to the fourth amendment, the whole prohibition of warrantless searches. This is pretty much the whole foundation to the right to privacy argument, which all comes down to how you read the Constitution, as a literal document or one of spirit and intent. If we go by literal, the only thing that is protected by the constitution are your physical belongings residing within your property or person. Of course if we go with the literal-only reading, we can make a person a slave to the state if they're convicted of a crime (ANY crime too... stole a candybar? Slave!). And militias are to be regulated by congress and be at their call for deployment (oooh... states rights!). It seems to work out the best for the most people though when it's taken as a document of intent since the framers couldn't even speculate as to what life would be like in 200+ years.

But keep in mind that all it takes to repeal any amendment (or adding a new one) is 2/3 of each house of Congress, and then 2/3 of all the state legislatures. This is a very difficult barrier to breach, and would require some sort of divine intervention to pass anything against the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments). So Congress, with the help of the states themselves, can go in and make changes if they all agree.

The problem with the Patriot Act, or the wiretapping program is that it is all allowed under the War Powers Act (1973) which gives the President of the United States. In order to get at these more recent problems, you'd need to address that older law. Until it is ruled unconstitutional, acts carried out under it are perfectly legal.

2/3 of each house of Congress, and then 2/3 of all the state legislatures.

3/4 of the states actually.

That's what I thought, 3/4, but I didn't want to say anything because I thought 3/4 might just be to ratify it.