Snowden, *by law*, needed to do what he did.

[JDPriestly]

43. At one time, case law said slavery was the law.

After all, the slaveowner had entered into a legally binding contract when he bought the slave, and that had to be respected. Can't go around breaking other people's contracts, you know was the attitude.

I believe that the Smith v. Maryland decision will be distinguished from what the NSA is now doing. Maybe not the first times the Supreme Court considers the matter, but eventually.

The NSA program will go very wrong, and people will realize what a horrible idea it is. That is what will happen. Eventually, either the Supreme Court will decide for the people and the innate rights that the Bill of Rights protects including a pretty strict interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, or we will cease to even pretend to be a democracy governed by laws and three separate but equal branches of government.

Among other thins, I think the NSA surveillance is a violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers. The NSA surveillance permits the executive branch to oversee members of Congress. That is upside down. The Congress is supposed to oversee the activities of the executive branch. How does the NSA surveillance violate separation of powers? Because it allows the NSA in the executive branch, whether intentionally or inadvertently, to spy on the electronic communications of members of Congress. That is a very, very serious matter.