3 ms·
Would a bill to explicitly define the 4th to include data storage have sufficient force of law? Or would that violate separation of powers and get thrown out by
by lukifer 13y ago
Would a bill to explicitly define the 4th to include data storage have sufficient force of law? Or would that violate separation of powers and get thrown out by SCOTUS?
At any rate, given the tepid reaction of Congress, I don't see an amendment happening anytime soon. Hell, at this point the ideological tribalism is so bad, I'm not sure they could agree on an amendment outlawing the kicking of puppies.
- yuhong 13y agoI am thinking about defining foreign spying powers of the government.
- avar 13y agoOnce you change the constitution it can't be thrown out be the SCOTUS by definition. They can interpret constitutional law or declare law unconstitutional, they can't blatantly ignore the constitution (well, in theory...). In short, the facility to reverse supreme court decisions is a constitutional amendment.
- jessriedel 13y agolukifer is asking about whether a normal bill (law) would be sufficient, as opposed to yuhong's suggestions of a constitutional amendment.
- rayiner 13y ago> Would a bill to explicitly define the 4th to include data storage have sufficient force of law? I don't think it would be a separation of powers problem in and of itself, but by virtue of separation of powers the judiciary wouldn't be bound to follow that interpretation.
- s_q_b 13y agoCongress can't change the scope of Constitutional rights, either to expand or narrow them. They could, however, simply outlaw the practice. This all happened once before, with the Church Commission, and we were able to step back from the brink, using statutory rather than Constitutional fixes. Today, it seems we lack the political will to do so again.