Posted on 02/12/2015 8:33:40 AM PST by Kaslin
President George W. Bush was fond of saying that "9/11 changed everything." He used that one-liner often as a purported moral basis to justify the radical restructuring of federal law and the federal assault on personal liberties over which he presided. He cast aside his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution; he rejected his oath to enforce all federal laws faithfully; and he moved the government decidedly in the direction of secret laws, secret procedures and secret courts.
During his presidency, Congress enacted the Patriot Act. This legislation permits federal agents to write their own search warrants when those warrants are served on custodians of records -- like doctors, lawyers, telecoms, computer servers, banks and even the Post Office.
Such purported statutory authority directly violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right to privacy in our "persons, houses, papers and effects." That includes just about everything held by the custodians of our records. Privacy is not only a constitutional right protected by the document; it is also a natural right. We possess the right to privacy by virtue of our humanity. Our rights come from within us -- whether you believe we are the highest progression of biological forces or the intended creations of an Almighty God -- they do not come from the government.
This is not an academic argument. If our rights come from within us, the government cannot take them away, whether by executive fiat, popular legislation or judicial ruling, unless we individually have waived them. If our rights come from the government, then they are not rights, but permission slips.
The terms of the Patriot Act were made public, and those of us who follow the government's misdeeds could report on them. After all, this is America. We are a democracy. The government is supposed to work for us. We have the right to know what it is doing in our names as it is doing it, and we have the right to reveal what the government does. Yet, under this law, the feds punished many efforts at revelation. That's because the Patriot Act prohibits those who receive these agent-written search warrants from telling anyone about them. This violates our constitutionally protected and natural right to free speech. All of this has been publicly known since 2001.
Then, in June 2013, Edward Snowden, the uber-courageous former CIA and NSA official, dropped a still smoldering bombshell of truth upon us when he revealed that the Bush administration had dispatched the NSA to spy on all Americans all the time and the Obama administration had attempted to make the spying appear legal by asking judges to authorize it.
Snowden went on to reveal that the NSA, pursuant to President Obama's orders and the authorization of these judges meeting in secret (so secret that the judges themselves are not permitted to keep records of their own rulings), was actually capturing and storing the content of all emails, text messages, telephone calls, utility and credit card bills, and bank statements of everyone in America. They did this without a search warrant based on probable cause -- a very high level of individualized suspicion -- as required by the Constitution.
Snowden revealed that Obama's lawyers had persuaded these secret judges, without any opposition from lawyers representing the victims of this surveillance, that somehow Congress had authorized this and somehow it was constitutional and somehow it was not un-American to spy on all of us all the time. These judges actually did the unthinkable: They issued what are known as general warrants. General warrants were used against the colonists by the British and are expressly prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. They permit the bearer to search wherever he wishes and seize whatever he finds. That's what the NSA does to all of us today.
Last week, we learned how deep the disrespect for the Constitution runs in the government and how tortured is the logic that underlies it. In a little-noted speech at Washington and Lee Law School, Gen. Michael Hayden, the former director of both the CIA and the NSA, told us. In a remarkable public confession, he revealed that somehow he received from some source he did not name the authority to reinterpret the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy so as to obliterate it. He argued that the line between privacy and unbridled government surveillance is a flexible and movable one, and that he -- as the head of the NSA -- could move it.
This is an astounding audacity by a former high-ranking government official who swore numerous times to uphold the Constitution. He has claimed powers for himself that are nowhere in the Constitution or federal statues, powers that no president or Congress has claimed, powers that no Supreme Court decision has articulated, powers that are antithetical to the plain meaning and supremacy of the Constitution, powers that any non-secret judge anywhere would deny him.
If the terms and meaning of the Constitution could be changed by the secret whims of those in the executive branch into whose hands they have been reposed for safekeeping, of what value are they? No value. In such a world, our Constitution has become a worthless piece of paper.
Yep. Our country is all but gone. We are pert near AMERICA in name only.
The Judge is correct. The Rights given to us by our Creator and recognized in the Bill of Rights are being ignored by all branches of government.
I doont necessarily disagree with his overall point, but he distorts and mischaracterizes as much as any liberal activist judge.
This is another article on the side of the scale that restoring the USA from within the system is becoming impossible. Once Obama legalizes several tens of millions of illegals and continues to import as many as he can, the takeover will be complete. The US will have fallen to a soft coup lead by the cabal in the White House and their agents throughout the government and the media.
The time to resort to that third (or fourth, depending on your list) box gets closer every day.
4th Amendment is a Civil Right and there is not natural right to privacy.
4th Amendment does not even address privacy, but being secure against unreasonable search.
This guy is looney tunes.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the point he is trying to make, but his argument is nonsense.
5.56mm
While the Judge should not have attempted to enshrine a “right to privacy” in the Bill of Rights, for better or worse a very liberal United States Supreme Court once recognized its existence.
What I think Napolitano is doing is making “sauce for the gander” an argument to use against the statists. The people who argue for “right to abortion” as being an extension of “right to privacy” are hypocrites if they don’t condemn the government for its limitless disregard of the 4th Amendment by prying into all aspects of your life.
bump
I agree.
I keep trying to make the point that the Patriot Act (as it was intended) was not the evil boggart it is now.
It was intended to break down the Gorelick Wall that kept the intel agencies from sharing data and spreading the word.
But as with all heavy weapons like this, if wielded by honorable men, it’s a tool for good. It has been usurped by evil men, and now becomes a cudgel for evil.
“While the Judge should not have attempted to enshrine a “right to privacy” in the Bill of Rights”
Yeah. Nor is it a natural or human right like freedom speech or religion.
I appreciate your comment, but I really couldn’t tell what he was trying to do in the article.
Instead of declaring war on the terrorists, our government declared war on its own citizens.
Yes, Jorge refused to close the border and make illegals self-deport, and refused to round up mohammedans who had overstayed their visas, but he did push the “Patriot” Act. So now we continue to have porous borders and mohammedan immigration but can feel secure that 85 year old, white-haired grandmas are having to endure body cavity searches at the airport.
Thank you, Jorge.
How about "appealing to people's emotions and sense of outrage to get them riled up?"
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.
___
While the word “privacy” is not used, the right of privacy is nonetheless guaranteed by the 4th amendment. To be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” implies privacy. The government routinely violates the 4th amendment under the cover of unconstitutional laws.
Sorry Judge .. BUT AMERICA IS A REPUBLIC .. not a democracy.
To be exact America is a democratic Republic
America is designed to be a Representative Republic.
Actually America is a Constitutional Republic. So I was also wrong
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.