[gorush]

...or Constitutional?

[LyinLibs]

[Nowhere Man]

Agreed. As one of my best friends puts it, “the law is not sacrosanct.”

[Paladin2]

A million monkeys CAN’T be wrong.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

An act is either constitutional, or illegal.

[Pollster1]

In the system of checks and balances, one wold hope that one of the three branches of government would restrain the other two if any part or parts of the government violate the Constitution. As a check on all three going rogue, we have elections. As a check on a rogue government buying off 51% of voters (mob rule), we have the Second Amendment.

I hope our ruling class has enough respect for the rule of law to avoid forcing us to resort to that final defense of liberty. The tree of liberty must from time to time be watered, but I am not anxious to make that necessity any more frequent than the parasites among us demand.

[SoFloFreeper]

All three branches signed off on the internment of the Japanese during World War II. Did that make it legal? I mean everybody knew that was happening, the courts knew it, FDR did it, the Congress knew. Well, was it legal? Was it legal and just not right? Or was it legal? All it means is -- and I love John Bolton. I have an incredible amount of respect for John Bolton. But all three branches signing off -- this is the most massive amount of spying and data collection ever. It's happening in the midst of news stories of how this administration is openly targeting for punishment its political enemies. I'm sorry, that's not in a vacuum.

Rush nails it. Again.

[NonValueAdded]

Did all 3 branches sign off? I find that hard to believe unless SCOTUS issues classified decisions. Given Scalia’s dissent in the recent DNA case, I find it very hard to believe that he would be supportive of such a general warrant (in the historic sense of that term).

[Ken H]

All 3 branches agreed on Obamacare.

[dforest]

Oh Mr Bolton, you forgot the most important party that all those branches work for.

We The People, and we do not agree that this is okay.

[MamaTexan]

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
Frederick Bastiat, 1850

[Iron Munro]

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.

[Alex Murphy]

There's a context here. It matters who's collecting this data. It's all about the potential for abuse. Anything can be abused. That's why it's so important who we elect to high office. This is why character mattered so much to the Founders. It's why we ought to do everything we can within our realm of ability to do so to elect trustworthy people, and we haven't been doing that lately.

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.