NSA and the Fourth Amendment

I'll get all my papers and I smile at the sky
Though I know that the hypnotized never lie
--The Who

Proponents of NSA tracking of phone calls in the US, along with other government spying programs on American citizens, put forth various arguments. The technology makes it easy to do. It's a small price to pay to be safe from terrorists. The Patriot Act makes it legal.

But it is not legal. The Fourth Amendment states:

"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."

The Constitution is clear. People have to the right to be secure in their person and possessions against search and seizure by government. If government wants to search or seize, then a warrant must be issued by a judicial authority. To be valid, a warrant must be specific in terms of where a search is to take place, and what is to be seized.

There are no provisions for standing or blanket search warrants such as those being authorized by FISA courts, nor are there exceptions for cases of 'national security.'

An federal government program that takes records from private hands over a period of time with a stated purpose of monitoring potential terrorist activity is clearly unconstitutional.

Full-throated debate about the trade-off between safety and freedom is welcome and long overdue. But the Constitution is clear, and it is wholly consistent with natural law.

If this law is to be changed, then that change must follow the law as well--in the form of the amendment process to the Constitution. Statists face an uphill battle in that regard.