Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Edward Snowden completely abandoned girlfriend, says her father [View all]Shoulders of Giants
(370 posts)I'm not a lawyer and don't know the specifics. All I know is in my opinion, this is unconstitutional.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/16/nsa-collects-millions-text-messages-daily-untargeted-global-sweep
So is this.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/14/nsa-email-instant-messaging-contact-lists/2984055/
So is this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/15/nsa-phone-calls-warrants_n_3448075.html
I don't care what some ruling from 1978 says. The fourth amendment is more important. Its only a paragraph long, and is very easy to understand. If any Supreme Court Justice claims that this is constitutional, they are quite simply wrong. Just because five Supreme Court Justices rule one way or another does not change my opinion on the constitutionality of something.
I also didn't mean to compare it to slavery. I was just pointing out the fallacy in the argument that, the supreme court decided something, that means its constitutional. I personally would rather take a less than 1 percent increased chance of dying from a terrorist attack, than the government unconstitutionally spying on pretty much everything I do electronically, but that's just me.