Posted on 06/11/2013 4:24:07 PM PDT by COBOL2Java
Actually, I disagree in principle. The Supreme Court is the 3rd branch, as established by the Article III of the Constitution. The minor courts are a creation of Congress (under that same article) and are answerable to Congress for matters of scope and authority (and funding). I think in the full context of the matter at hand this IS an important distinction. In matters of Constitutionality, SCOTUS is the fat lady.
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.[emphasis added, lower case "supreme" in the original]
The Supreme Court confirmed the circular argument that dialing your phone means (for no stated reason) that you are “assuming the risk” that they will give the information about the call to somebody, and therefore they are compelled to do just that.
The other obvious lie in the decision is that the act of dialing itself is a “voluntary” sharing of the information and not simply the action of making the call.
ah here we go, a few excerpts from the dissenting opinions:
“...the Court today says that those safeguards do not extend to the numbers dialed from a private telephone, apparently because when a caller dials a number the digits may be recorded by the telephone company for billing purposes. But that observation no more than describes the basic nature of telephone calls. A telephone call simply cannot be made without the use of telephone company property and without payment to the company for the service.”
“But even assuming, as I do not, that individuals “typically know” that a phone company monitors calls for internal reasons, ante at 442 U. S. 743, [Footnote 3/1] it does not follow that they expect this information to be made available to the public in general or the government in particular. Privacy is not a discrete commodity, possessed absolutely or not at all. Those who disclose certain facts to a bank or phone company for a limited business purpose need not assume that this information will be released to other persons for other purposes.”
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/735/case.html
My God, that decision is lie upon baseless supposition upon fallacious argument upon factual impossibilities. Here’s just one section:
“The switching equipment that processed those numbers is merely the modern counterpart of the operator who, in an earlier day, personally completed calls for the subscriber. Petitioner concedes that, if he had placed his calls through an operator, he could claim no legitimate expectation of privacy. ... We are not inclined to hold that a different constitutional result is required because the telephone company has decided to automate.”
“An operator, in theory at least, is capable of remembering every number that is conveyed to him by callers. Electronic equipment, by contrast, can “remember” only those numbers it is programmed to record, and telephone companies, in view of their present billing practices, usually do not record local calls. Since petitioner, in calling McDonough, was making a local call, his expectation of privacy as to her number, on this theory, would be “legitimate.” This argument does not withstand scrutiny.”
NO!
Especially when the executive branch has the information, the ability, the will and the lack of morality to coerce, arm-twist and blackmail individuals in the legislature and judiciary.
I disagree with Rush on this one. It doesn't matter who collects the data. It's not about abuse, it's about the Federal government acting outside the bounds of the Constitution. And surprisingly, Rush Limbaugh agrees with all three branches of government on this warrantless collection of personal data on its citizens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.