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

[brett_jv]

136. The reason phone call CONTENT is considered 'covered' under the 4th is because of the Courts ...

Obviously, there were no phones at the time the Constitution was written. Therefore, there was a time in our history since our Constitution was written, when the question arose: "Are our phone conversations OUR 'property, effect, papers, etc', such that they would be covered/protected under the 4th?"

As a matter of fact, for 40 years, between Olmstead and Katz (from the 20's to the 60's, IOW), PHONE CALLS COULD BE WIRETAPPED, without a friggin' warrant, and used against you in Court!

From Chief Justice WH Taft in Olmstead:
"The amendment itself shows that the search is to be of material things - the person, the house, his papers or his effects. The amendment does not forbid what was done here for there was no seizure. The evidence was secured by the sense of hearing and that only. There was not entry of the houses. The language of the amendment cannot be extended and expanded. Since the evidence was a conversation and no entry was made into Olmstead's home, there was therefore no violation of his rights against unreasonable search and seizure."


People really need to understand that these matters concerning what constitutes 'your property/effects/papers' have always been in flux, always been debated, and have always been subject to CHANGE. The matter of telephone meta-data is one of those things that's simply NOT BEEN DECIDED upon YET one way or the other. I don't know offhand, but I suspect emails aren't decided upon either, esp. if you're using email servers that are offered for free by some corporation like Yahoo or MS.

Please try to keep in mind that at least SOME of us 'evil folks' here on DU that y'all accuse of just being dogmatic Obama nob-buffers or 'plants' or whatever other nasty names suits you in the moment are REALLY just trying to point out ... what I mentioned above.

There IS A LEGIT QUESTION involved that remains unsettled here. Is the gathering our phone-call meta-data in bulk, without our names, by the government, actually in violation of the 4th Amendment? This is a VALID question, and given that it's not be SPECIFICALLY deemed as covered under the 4th by the Courts (just as our phone conversations were not even deemed to be covered by the 4th for like FORTY (40) friggin YEARS!), the NSA is taking advantage of the lack of a decision that specifically forbids it.

It's this simple ... this crap, that NONE OF US 'likes' ... has to be decided, either by a Law, or by a High Court decision, and the 'proprietors', if you will, of these sorts of data (anything that is not specifically one's 'house/papers/effects) must be SPECIFICALLY DEEMED as 'the ones making the calls' in order for this data to be 'covered' under the 4th. Otherwise, it simply ISN'T ... covered by the 4th. That's the reality of the situation. It's clearly debatable as to whether this data concerning our phone calls (without our names attached) constitutes our 'homes, papers, effects'. JUST like it was regarding the contents of our phone calls for a long period in our history.

We first must work towards getting our telephony meta-data to be deemed by law or court as being 'officially ours' ... otherwise, just as was the case between Olmstead and Katz, when friggin WIRETAPS of our phones without warrant was legal ... this data is simply not considered 'ours' by law, and hence, we really have no recourse.

What many of us 'apologists' are trying to point out is that we feel it's time to stop 'bashing Obama' for stuff that really ain't 'his responsibility', and instead hammering our Congress-critters to produce a law that says our telephone meta-data IS OUR 'HOMES/PAPERS/EFFECTS' (and lets throw in our emails, chats, and the like), so we at least have a LEGAL 'leg to stand on' when we complain about this shit. Because as it stands now, we really DON'T. Y'all can have your tantrums and call fellow Democrats nasty names for not 'seeing things how you see them' all day long, but you're just tilting at windmills 'til such laws/decisions come down.

That shit ain't covered under the 4th until a law or court case SAYS they are. You don't get to just say 'this is my property, and the Gubmint collecting it is ILLEGAL under the 4th, and constitutes SPYING on ME!'.

Well, you CAN, but that won't make it so, no matter how many names you call people, how big of a tantrum you throw, or how much paranoid hyperbole you resort to ... and as such, sorry, but not everyone's going to agree on this point.