Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Just read about the ruling of a federal judge in D.C. that denied the constitutionality of the NSA's phone surveillance program. The trailblazing judge is Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee and Harvard Law grad. The lead plaintiff is Larry Klayman, the conservative activist who founded Judicial Watch. Who knew that the civil libertarian wing of the conservative movement would strike the first blow here in a decision applauded by the ACLU? Judge Leon suspended his order to permit an expedited appeal by the government. We'll see where this goes. Up to the SCOTUS by the end of next year, I'm sure.

Reminds me of the old George Carlin line about FBI wiretaps: "I always answer my phone, Fuck Hoover! Hello!"

Indeed...and it's of course the right decision.

This will not make Obama, Babs Boxer, Peter King, Chris Christie, or Dick Cheney happy.

kalm wrote:Indeed...and it's of course the right decision.

This will not make Obama, Babs Boxer, Peter King, Chris Christie, or Dick Cheney happy.

You can also be that the decision will not change the government's behavior one bit.

NSA black box funding just went up.

Ivytalk wrote:
Reminds me of the old George Carlin line about FBI wiretaps: "I always answer my phone, Fuck Hoover! Hello!"

George certainly had some groundbreaking stuff.

Judge Pauley, a Clinton appointee to the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, just issued a decision (12/27) going the other way on the Constitutional issues. The SCOTUS will almost certainly get the case in the new term, given the split rulings from the lower courts -- most of which decisions have upheld the metadata searches.

Ivytalk wrote:Judge Pauley, a Clinton appointee to the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, just issued a decision (12/27) going the other way on the Constitutional issues. The SCOTUS will almost certainly get the case in the new term, given the split rulings from the lower courts -- most of which decisions have upheld the metadata searches.

If the founders only had the foresight to include "digital" papers and affects...and/or anticipate private third party players...

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Judge Pauley, a Clinton appointee to the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, just issued a decision (12/27) going the other way on the Constitutional issues. The SCOTUS will almost certainly get the case in the new term, given the split rulings from the lower courts -- most of which decisions have upheld the metadata searches.

If the founders only had the foresight to include "digital" papers and affects...and/or anticipate private third party players...

And/or anticipate telephones! That's your "living Constitution" for you...

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
If the founders only had the foresight to include "digital" papers and affects...and/or anticipate private third party players...

And/or anticipate telephones! That's your "living Constitution" for you...

Didn't Jefferson believe we needed a Constitutional Convention every 20 years or so?

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: And/or anticipate telephones! That's your "living Constitution" for you...

Didn't Jefferson believe we needed a Constitutional Convention every 20 years or so?

Perhaps. But many legal scholars believe that a Constitutional convention called by two thirds of the States under Article V would be unwise, because the document itself contains no way of limiting the scope or number of the amendments that might be proposed at such a convention. Most recent calls for a convention have come from the political right, and they haven't gotten very far. I'm fine with the Bill of Rights as it is. Do you actually think the Constitution has to be amended, and if so, how? Do we need a convention every 20 years to keep up with technology and the latest trends in what passes for political thought? I think not.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
Didn't Jefferson believe we needed a Constitutional Convention every 20 years or so?

Perhaps. But many legal scholars believe that a Constitutional convention called by two thirds of the States under Article V would be unwise, because the document itself contains no way of limiting the scope or number of the amendments that might be proposed at such a convention. Most recent calls for a convention have come from the political right, and they haven't gotten very far. I'm fine with the Bill of Rights as it is. Do you actually think the Constitution has to be amended, and if so, how? Do we need a convention every 20 years to keep up with technology and the latest trends in what passes for political thought? I think not.

I brought up Jefferson because he clearly had the foresight to see a need for changing the constitution. And the bar for convention and ratification is still pretty high.

Of course I think the constitution needs to be amended. The common sense idea of a corporation not being the same as a person evidently needs to be set in stone.

Regardless, do you really think the founders would not view a person's private emails, texts, and phone calls as being protected by the 4th amendment. Shouldn't a person expect those private correspondences to receive the same protection against illegal search and seizure as a written letter? BTW, don't authorities have to get warrant for a wire tap?

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: And/or anticipate telephones! That's your "living Constitution" for you...

Didn't Jefferson believe we needed a Constitutional Convention every 20 years or so?

I think it was a revolution every 20 years, but not sure he meant it quite that matter of factly

BTW, I agree with you on the NSA.