Feds vs Fourth Amendment

"What can I say? I'm a spy."
--Harry Tasker (True Lies)

Consistent with discussion on these pages, Jacob Hornberger observes that broad federal government surveillance schemes are clearly unconstitutional per the Fourth Amendment. Any search or seizure must be specific by place and person. There is no justification for ongoing or 'blanket' programs.

Government officials claim that these programs are necessary in order to keep us safe. But, as JH notes, there are no exceptions written into the Fourth Amendment that nullify the law in the name of national security.

The framers knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote this amendment. They understood that the federal government would inevitably attract people who would like to do the things prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.

People like those currently in office.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits federal officials from indiscriminately searching homes, businesses, and personal effects. In the event of a crime, the feds cannot go door to door in search of evidence. They also cannot search everyone's things in order to prevent a crime.

If federal officials want to search a person or a person's possessions, then they must get a warrant authorized by a judge. In order to get a warrant, law enforcement officials must swear out an affidavit specifying precisely the evidence that is being sought. They must also produce evidence of 'probable cause.' If officials fail to do either of those things, then it is the judge's responsibility to deny the search warrant application.

People seeking to enact/enforce NSA spying, the Patriot Act, and related programs are precisely the type of people that the framers were seeking to restrain.