Is the new SPY BILL unconstitutional?

[L. Coyote]

I have not heard this question addressed. I hear the constitution mentioned.

[kansasblue]

1. not in this Supreme Court. nt

[BlooInBloo]

12. Beat me to the obvious response.

[dflprincess]

2. The Warren Court would probably have thought so

the current one - not so much.

[AndrewJacksonFaction]

3. I would argue that it is.

There are least openings for it to be abused, and you know what this group is like when they have an opening.

I think we have to look no further than the William Jefferson case to see that this program without oversight is in fact unconstitutional.

[trashcanistanista]

4. Yes, but I don't think it matters.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. With the Roverts Court? not likely.

5-4.

[burrowowl]

6. HELL YES it is

UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
PEOPLE! Damn ARISE!

[Gregorian]

7. Even if it is it's going to cause an deafening uproar.

I can already hear it. I think this is more than the last straw. There just aren't any more straws left. This camel's back is already broken. People are going to be totally outraged by this.


Keith Olberman will have John Dean on to talk about the constitutionality of this, no doubt.

[scarletwoman]

8. Even if it is, there's no one left to uphold the Constitution. Forget the Roberts Court. (nt)

[Hubert Flottz]

9. No I think it's the constitution that is unconstitutional in Bushworld.

Too Quaint.

[kansasblue]

10. Here is the midwest people ain't got a clue anything is even going on.

All is good.

[L. Coyote]

15. You make a good point. We are all ranting to ourselves, and that does nothing.

Meanwhile, what will be on the news tonight?

A bridge fell!

[kansasblue]

19. I mentioned Cheney impeach once and got strange looks...

Why would anyone want to impeach Cheney?

The land that time forgot.

[Double T]

11. What Constitution?

[karlrschneider]

13. Yes, it is, BUT in order to have that adjuticated someone will have to

file suit, with 'standing' (someone who was wronged by it) and start in some Federal District Court and it might make it to the USSC in a few years. Good luck with that...

[L. Coyote]

17. Agreed. And, there is that sticky clause about "reasonably believed to be"

[Tatiana]

14. I do believe it violates the 4th Amendment.

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.

That being said, the Roberts court would never rule it unconstitutional.

[L. Coyote]

16. Agreed. It also sends a message to those outside the US.

We have no respect for the rights of anyone else!

[KingFlorez]

18. I don't think so

This particular bill states that foreign suspects communications that pass through the US can be tapped without a warrant, so they aren't protected by the constitution.

[porphyrian]

20. It doesn't really matter if no one is willing to do anything about it. - n/t