Transcript of the Edward Snowden portion of my show this week

[JDPriestly]

33. I find it easier to believe the NSA is lying.

What is left of the Bill of Rights?

The Fourth Amendment states:

Amendment IV

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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

What is left of that when the government, without satisfying the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment? The FISA court's orders are at least as overreaching as the general warrants called Writs of Assistance that played such a big role in angering colonial Americans to the point that they revolted.

Malcom Affair

A writ of assistance was used in an incident known as the "Malcom Affair", which was described by legal scholar William Cuddihy as "the most famous search in colonial America."[9] The episode demonstrated a fundamental difference between the colonists' view of their rights and the official British view of imperial law. "The Malcom affair was a minor matter, a comedy of blundering revenue officers and barricaded colonials," wrote legal historian John Phillip Reid, "but were we to dismiss it in haste we might run the risk of dismissing much of the story of the American Revolution."[10]

On 24 September 1766, customs officials in Boston, with a deputy sheriff, searched merchant Daniel Malcom's home, which was also his place of business. They claimed the authority to do so by a writ of assistance issued to customs official Benjamin Hallowell, and the information of a confidential informant.[11] Malcom allowed them to search, but denied them access to a locked cellar, arguing that they did not have the legal authority to break it open. According to customs officials, Malcom threatened to use force to prevent them from opening the door; according to Malcom and his supporters, his threat specified resisting any unlawful forced entry.[12]

The officials left and returned with a specific search warrant, only to find that Malcom had locked his house.[13] A crowd supportive of Malcom had gathered around the house; Tories claimed that this "mob" numbered 300 or more people and was hostile to the customs officers, while Whigs insisted that this was a peaceful gathering of about 50 curious onlookers, mostly boys.[14] No violence occurred, but reports written by Governor Francis Bernard and the customs officials created the impression in Britain that a riot had taken place.[15] The incident furthered Boston's reputation in Britain as a lawless town controlled by "mobs", a reputation that would contribute to the government's decision to send troops in 1768.[16]

Although British officials, and some historians, described Malcom as acting in defiance of the law, John Phillip Reid argued that Malcom's actions were lawful—so precisely lawful, in fact, that Reid speculated that Malcom may have been acting under the advice of his lawyer, James Otis. According to Reid, Malcom and Otis may have been attempting to provoke a lawsuit so that they could once again "challenge the validity of writs of assistance" in court.[17] This was one of several incidents when a Boston merchant resisted a search with a seemingly exact knowledge of the law; John Hancock would act in a similar manner when customs officials attempted to search his ship Lydia in 1768.[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance

See also:

A Writ of Assistance is a written order issued by a court instructing a law enforcement official to perform a certain task. In the area of customs, Writs of Assistance were first authorized by an act of the English Parliament in 1660 and were issued by the Court of Exchequer to help customs officials search for smuggled goods. These writs were called "Writs of Assistance" because they called upon sheriffs, other officials, and loyal subjects to "assist" the customs official in carrying out his duties.

In colonial America, customs Writs of Assistance served as general search warrants that did not expire, allowing customs officials to search anywhere for smuggled goods without having to obtain a specific warrant. These writs were issued by courts in British America in the 1760s. The oppressive nature of these General Writs of Assistance inspired the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which forbids general search warrants in the United States. Thus once again, the founders, whether by luck or phenomenal insight, provided yet another restraint on governmental overreach.

Thus, the NSA domestic spying programs are merely a modern day equivalent of Writs of Assistance and since generalized blanket search warrants are forbidden by the 4th Amendment, the NSA programs are prima fascie unconstitutional.

http://www.scsun-news.com/ci_23721921