Liberals Fight Bush Bid to Change the Constitution on Wiretapping

It's so obvious that George Bush's warrantless spying on American citizens violates the Fourth Amendment, that it was only a matter of time before a federal judge ruled against it. The Bush Administration, especially Attorrney General Alberto Gonzales, fully expected it, and had its appeal ready to be immediately filed.

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees: " 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. "

It's black-and-white clear that listening to people's personal calls, reading their email and snail mail, searching their homes, perusing their internet browsing habits... all without a warrant or their permission... violates the US Constitution.

No legal scholar seriously argues that these acts don't violate the Fourth Amendment. You see, the Bush Administration never tried to follow constitutional protections for citizens' privacy. They want to change the Constitution, by permanently stripping these rights away from the American people.

Liberal Leaders Fight Bid to End Constitutional Protections

Since the New York Times lifted the veil from the administration's extra-NSA tapping of Americans' phone calls, liberal leaders have loudly decried the unconstitutionality of the Bush-authorized program. George Bush asserts that, as the unitary executive, he is above the law, and his desires, goals and strategies take precedent over the US Constitution.

About the August 2006 White House-Specter domestic spying legislation, Senator Dianne Feinstein stated, " I am concerned that this type of long-term, unsupervised wiretapping could eventually lead to abuses of the type that led us to enact FISA in the first place – where war protesters and even Martin Luther King were secretly wiretapped without any outside oversight. The new Specter bill would turn back the clock to an era of unchecked Presidential power and warrantless domestic surveillance. "

Al Gore in his watershed January 2006 speech: "At present, we still have much to learn about the NSA's domestic surveillance. What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the President of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently.

A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our Founding Fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men."

Senator Russ Feingold in March 2006 when calling for censure of the President: "The President authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil, and then misled Congress and the public about the existence and legality of that program. It is up to this body to reaffirm the rule of law by condemning the President's actions.

All of us in this body took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States... Fulfilling that oath requires us to speak clearly and forcefully when the President violates the law."

Senator Hillary Clinton in June 2006 when proposing a Privacy Bill of Rights: "If the executive needs additional authority to legitimately monitor and track terrorists, it should not just simply overlook and ignore the law... It is a cause for deep concern that the Administration did not seek changes to the FISA law to legitimize its surveillance program, but instead deliberately chose to act outside of that law. "

What's Next?

Legal analysts believe that this case will be appealed to the US Supreme Court, which will eventually decide the allowability of presidential spying without warrants or judicial supervision.

Prior to confirmation of President Bush's two Supreme Court nominees, John Roberts, Jr., and Samuel Alito, Jr., there existed little chance that the Court would support violations of Fourth Amendment protections.

Associate Justice Alito, though, is a firm believer in the "unitary executive" theory that the President need follow the law only when he sees fit, according to his own personal interpretation, despite federal "checks and balances" mandated by the US Constitution.

And few Court observers see much difference between the views of solidly conservative Chief Justice Roberts and Mr. Alito.

While this case, known as the ACLU vs. the NSA, winds its way through the federal judiciary, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has filed to prevent the ruling from taking force. Said the President, "I would say that those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live. I strongly disagree with that decision, strongly disagree. That’s why I instructed the Justice Department to appeal immediately."

Liberal leaders strongly support the words of Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's ruling: "It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly when his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another.”

Thank God.

Related Reading
Can US Democracy Survive the Bush-Alito "Unitary Executive" Doctrine?
Senator Hillary Clinton Proposes Privacy Bill of Rights & Privacy Czar
Senator Dianne Feinstein Opposes S.2453, Which Expands Warrantless Spying
Al Gore on Constitutional Crisis Created by President Bush
Liberal Blogs on NSA Spying: Single Greatest Nightmare of Our Founders