8 ms·
Is it possible for Americans to file a class action suit over a top secret government surveillance program? I feel like we all have standing at least.
by andrewljohnson 13y ago
Is it possible for Americans to file a class action suit over a top secret government surveillance program? I feel like we all have standing at least.
- anigbrowl 13y agoThe courts would rightly reject it as a political matter.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- dllthomas 13y agoWhen I object to the government breaking the law against me, it's not "a political matter" - indeed, usually the courts are the appropriate venue.
- anigbrowl 13y agoYou're not in a position to make that determination, and the judicial branch has traditionally taken a different view of this from yours. The question was whether people could sue, not whether they should be able to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_question
- andrewljohnson 13y agoHow are you construing an unconstitutional surveillance program as a political question? I don't see how any of the Court Cases listed on the wikipedia article are relevant. These all seem to relate to truly political things, like which branch has what authority, or how districts are apportioned. The article only cites 5 areas the courts have clear precedent on - wars, treaties, gerrymandering, impeachment, as well as the Guarantee clause. The Guarantee clause relates to Article 4 though, not Amendment 4. If we are construing this NSA wire-tapping as a war power, then we're in trouble, because we have now effectively agreed the written words of the Patriot Act have no meaning, and the constitution will never be applied uniformly to the executive.
- anigbrowl 13y agoI'm not all that sure it is unconstitutional, for one thing - aren't you begging the question here? And on a more general level, shouldn't you be considering precedent on justiciability, rather than basing your whole argument on your personal opinion of the waht the constitution means? I might note in asssing that I favor a constitutional amendment that would create an explicit right to privacy; I'm not in favor of a surveillance state. But that doesn't alter my skepticism about how a class action lawsuit would actually fare in the courts.
- rhizome 13y agoFISA courts may be unconstitutional, as in they don't satisfy the requirements for Article III courts, and FISA courts are the only valve on this behavior (such as they are). Congress is only told what is going on, and not very much (and to very few members) at that.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- freehunter 13y ago>I'm not all that sure it is unconstitutional And you know who the perfect people to decide that would be? Judges. In a court of law. Since that's one of their main job functions.
- anigbrowl 13y agoAs I have pointed out numerous times over the last few weeks, my belief is that they made that determination in 1979, in Smith v Maryland.
- dllthomas 13y agoPlease explain to me how a "constitutional amendment creating an explicit right to privacy" would do fuck all if the only body that assesses constitutionality won't allow us to complain when that right is breached.
- Uhhrrr 13y agoIt looks like "lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it" doesn't apply here. The 4th amendment clearly applies to the question of whether the government should be recording your mother's phone calls.
- anigbrowl 13y agoRead Smith v. Maryland and get back to me. The issue of standing is more complex, and lies along a philosophical fault line about the role of the judiciary; I refer you to this law review article for an overview of those issues: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2069&context=californialawreview&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar_url%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.berkeley.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D2069%2526context%253Dcalifornialawreview%26sa%3DX%26scisig%3DAAGBfm0dKIhW14rSE2dxTJFizWmc8qmECw%26oi%3Dscholarr#search=%22http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.berkeley.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D2069%26context%3Dcalifornialawreview%22 http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...
- Uhhrrr 13y agoFor call metadata, the pen register comparison might fly. If they are storing content, as is likely, it won't. The beginning of the article on standing does raise questions I hadn't thought about. How would you decide the penalty for something with the potential for abuse? Just because the NSA is storing the largest ever collection of personal info with potential for blackmail, election skullduggery, stalking, identity theft, etc. doesn't mean that those things would happen. If all their data centers were hit by EMPs tomorrow, there may be no injury. It would seem that when information which would indicate standing is itself concealed, though, that the threshold should be lower. Eh, I'll keep reading.
- anigbrowl 13y agoI'm thinking of the metadata, yes. I'm not convinced yet about the content allegations, and I suspect (but have not researched) that the point if illegality is when people start listening to them without a warrant rather than when they're merely stored.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- mtgx 13y agoIt has already happened.