So which Amendment is it that permits subordination of the Constitution to "safety from terrorism?"

[ConservativeDemocrat]

100. Actually, I didn't. Because it's a moot point.

The information about who who phoned is known to a corporation, which you apparently imagine to be perfectly angelic and everything. I'll agree for the most part, since I give people the benefit of the doubt. Google just wants to target ads.

Now the government already has the legal ability to compel corporations to reveal all sorts of information. If they didn't our tax system would be unconstitutional. (Hint: it's not.)

So they don't need to issue a Warrant. Only a subpoena - so long as it was approved by a court. Subpoenas are well known legal instruments to get people (more usually corporations) to reveal information, often by the boatload, often phone records. And if you know anything at all about law in this country, and discovery, you'll know that courts generally issue subpoenas at the drop of a hat.

PLEASE NOTE: I have absolutely nothing against people who want the law to change. I will likely respectfully disagree with these people, but hold them in high regard if they are in earnest. But self-appointed Constitutional "scholars" are simply crackpots.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community(*)

(*) Coined originally as a slam against Karl Rove. These days used against crackpots of all stripes, but mostly (in my case) against the GOP crackpots.(**)

(**) If you think my statement is targeting you, it's likely that a little voice of reason is still present.