7 ms·

Lawful ≠ Constitutional. The patriot act made all these "legal" - but aren't we waiting for a supreme court decision that states that the entire collection is

Lawful ≠ Constitutional. The patriot act made all these "legal" - but aren't we waiting for a supreme court decision that states that the entire collection is "unconstitutional"?

noarchy 13y ago
And when that court decides that it is all perfectly constitutional? That is the outcome that I expect, at this point. I think it is better to rely on ourselves to protect our privacy, where possible.
jrochkind1 13y ago
What are you talking about? The constitution is the "highest law of the land". Have you read the opinion, or even the nytimes article posted here? > Judge Pauley said that protections under the Fourth Amendment do not apply to records held by third parties, like phone companies. This judge indeed decided it was constitutional, that is in fact what "lawful" means in this case. A different federal judge in a different district decided it was not. Eventually the Supreme Court will probably decide, especially becaues of the disagreement between two different federal districts, the Supreme Court can make the final determination. (This was in the nytimes article too). But federal district court judges can and do make decisions of constitutional law all the time, it's not only the supreme court that can do that, but the supreme court can overrule the lower courts. Saying "Lawful ≠ Constitutional" just reveals you don't understand how the US legal system works. And also didn't bother to read the article before commenting on it. You are incorrect.
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  Look over the checks & balances in this case[1]. He was ruling that the collection was legal under the patriot act. However, the supreme court has the ability to apply "judicial review" to overturn a law / act / action. A quick perusal of wikipedia should help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks_and_balances#Checks_and_balances http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks_and_balances#Checks_and_...
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    I think you've helped me identify the crux of the problem: "The Supreme Court" is not doing its job of protecting the Constitutional rights of persons in the US with the vigor necessary to counter (check) the Legislative and Executive branches.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > He was ruling that the collection was legal under the patriot act. No, he was ruling that it was Constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. There were also claims under statutory rules, but they were dismissed on procedural grounds (specifically, that they were subject to soveriegn immunity and the claims, regardless of the merits, did not fit within the scope of Congressional waivers of that immunity.) > However, the supreme court has the ability to apply "judicial review" to overturn a law / act / action. Judicial review is not a unique power of the Supreme Court -- every federal court reviews actions against the federal Constitution (which is, after all, the highest federal law) routinely, and exercises the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court's only special role with regard to judicial review is the same as its special role on every other issue -- its the last answer in the judicial system, as there is no higher court to appeal to.
  - jrochkind1 13y ago
    > However, the supreme court has the ability to apply "judicial review" to overturn a law / act / action. So does any federal district court. The federal district court's decision (either way) can still be appealed to the supreme court though. In fact, this is pretty much the only way a case deciding constitutional law can get to the supreme court, first a federal district court has to decide if a law is constitutional or not, then it can be appealed to the supreme court. In this case, one federal district court has decided that NSA actions are constitutional; another has decided they are unconstitutional. (The exact same actions? I'm not entirely sure). It will be appealed to the supreme court, who will probably accept the case, and decide one way or the other. Seriously, you are mistaken about how the legal system works in the US.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Lawful ≠ Constitutional. ¬Constitutional ⇒ ¬Lawful The Constitution is the highest law, and that which is not Constitutional is, ipso facto, not lawful. > The patriot act made all these "legal" - but aren't we waiting for a supreme court decision that states that the entire collection is "unconstitutional"? The Supreme Court doesn't have unique competency in Constitutional cases, it just has final appellate authority. Every decision by a federal court that something is legal includes, either implicitly or explicitly, a decision that it is Constitutional. In this case, the Constitutional judgement is explicit, not implicit.

Lawful ≠ Constitutional. The patriot act made all these "legal" - but aren't we waiting for a supreme court decision that states that the entire collection is "unconstitutional"?

noarchy 13y ago

And when that court decides that it is all perfectly constitutional? That is the outcome that I expect, at this point. I think it is better to rely on ourselves to protect our privacy, where possible.

jrochkind1 13y ago

What are you talking about? The constitution is the "highest law of the land". Have you read the opinion, or even the nytimes article posted here? > Judge Pauley said that protections under the Fourth Amendment do not apply to records held by third parties, like phone companies. This judge indeed decided it was constitutional, that is in fact what "lawful" means in this case. A different federal judge in a different district decided it was not. Eventually the Supreme Court will probably decide, especially becaues of the disagreement between two different federal districts, the Supreme Court can make the final determination. (This was in the nytimes article too). But federal district court judges can and do make decisions of constitutional law all the time, it's not only the supreme court that can do that, but the supreme court can overrule the lower courts. Saying "Lawful ≠ Constitutional" just reveals you don't understand how the US legal system works. And also didn't bother to read the article before commenting on it. You are incorrect.

joelrunyon 13y ago
Look over the checks & balances in this case[1]. He was ruling that the collection was legal under the patriot act. However, the supreme court has the ability to apply "judicial review" to overturn a law / act / action. A quick perusal of wikipedia should help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks_and_balances#Checks_and_balances http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks_and_balances#Checks_and_...
- chris_mahan 13y ago
  I think you've helped me identify the crux of the problem: "The Supreme Court" is not doing its job of protecting the Constitutional rights of persons in the US with the vigor necessary to counter (check) the Legislative and Executive branches.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > He was ruling that the collection was legal under the patriot act. No, he was ruling that it was Constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. There were also claims under statutory rules, but they were dismissed on procedural grounds (specifically, that they were subject to soveriegn immunity and the claims, regardless of the merits, did not fit within the scope of Congressional waivers of that immunity.) > However, the supreme court has the ability to apply "judicial review" to overturn a law / act / action. Judicial review is not a unique power of the Supreme Court -- every federal court reviews actions against the federal Constitution (which is, after all, the highest federal law) routinely, and exercises the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court's only special role with regard to judicial review is the same as its special role on every other issue -- its the last answer in the judicial system, as there is no higher court to appeal to.
- jrochkind1 13y ago
  > However, the supreme court has the ability to apply "judicial review" to overturn a law / act / action. So does any federal district court. The federal district court's decision (either way) can still be appealed to the supreme court though. In fact, this is pretty much the only way a case deciding constitutional law can get to the supreme court, first a federal district court has to decide if a law is constitutional or not, then it can be appealed to the supreme court. In this case, one federal district court has decided that NSA actions are constitutional; another has decided they are unconstitutional. (The exact same actions? I'm not entirely sure). It will be appealed to the supreme court, who will probably accept the case, and decide one way or the other. Seriously, you are mistaken about how the legal system works in the US.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Lawful ≠ Constitutional. ¬Constitutional ⇒ ¬Lawful The Constitution is the highest law, and that which is not Constitutional is, ipso facto, not lawful. > The patriot act made all these "legal" - but aren't we waiting for a supreme court decision that states that the entire collection is "unconstitutional"? The Supreme Court doesn't have unique competency in Constitutional cases, it just has final appellate authority. Every decision by a federal court that something is legal includes, either implicitly or explicitly, a decision that it is Constitutional. In this case, the Constitutional judgement is explicit, not implicit.