It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You accept that the court has the right to supersede the constitution. It doesnt (though we allow it to). Anything else is moot. Any law made which supersedes the constitution is treasonous. Thats my point. As a people, we have accepted these things. That doesnt make them constitutional.
reply to post by captaintyinknots
No I don't and didn't admit they supersede the constitution. I said the court system determined they do not violate the law of the constitution. Yes for that back in the 60s time the courts said it was a violation, so the Act at that time said no, no not authorized. Did it still happen under the table? I wasn't there but it was the 60s, I think that says yes it did in some cases
When an agency can provide very real godlike powers over people to a government administration, those powers become impossible to remove.
The NSA can find anything on anyone anywhere any time and for any reason.
Think about the implications of a government having that kind of power, think of how it can be used to corrupt, coerce, extort, silence and control..
They will do anything, ANYTHING, to protect and retain those capabilities and powers they provide them.
reply to post by GArnold
I would suggest rereading the fourth ammendment. It has nothing to do with surveillance and data collection.
The Supreme Court decision in United States v. U.S. District Court (1972) left open the possibility for a foreign intelligence surveillance exception to the warrant clause.
- and then, shocker -
The exception to the Fourth Amendment was formally recognized by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review in its 2008 In re Directives decision.
As previously provided everything is justified by law