General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: We are being manipulated to miss the point. [View all]JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)computer capacity. The law doesn't work the way people think it does. Each case brought to the Supreme Court is based on facts that distinguish that case from the prior cases. So a decision made in 1979, without being "overturned" could easily declare this kind of massive spying to be a violation of the Constitution.
Obtaining the pen register on a gambling enterprise or a business that is cheating or violating the law requires a warrant based on probably cause.
But a case involving obtaining records en masse as the court order that was attached to Greenwald's first Guardian article did presents new facts. I don't believe any court has looked at this situation.
Loving v. Virginia, Brown v. Board of Education, those are just a couple of cases that illustrate how the interpretation of the Constitution changes over time.
If what I am explaining were not true, there would be no work for constitutional lawyers. Everything would have been set in stone long ago.
One of the problems with this massive surveillance and especially with the collection of data on calls to and from reporters is that it chills our right to a free press. And without a free press we have no democracy. We sink into dictatorship. And that is just one example of a right that this program chills. I can't say for sure, but I hope this program is Dead on Arrival at the Supreme Court.
I seriously doubt that the Supreme Court justices want the administration, any administration, to have a record of all their calls, both professional and personal.