Many thanks to the ACLU and Mr. Kahle for fighting the good fight for us all.

Your ‘lethargic brain’ needs to give up the idea that you have a ‘Constitutional right to privacy’. You have a right to protection from ‘unreasonable search and seizure’ but that’s a far cry from a right to privacy. Not that you’d ever figure that out from an Eric Mink column.

Realitycheck-

It seems that privacy of one’s own thoughts, beliefs and property are guaranteed in the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 9th and 14th amendments. Certainly the 9th amendment through the enumeration clause gives us a right to privacy. Privacy is an essential component of liberty and of course the 14th addresses that right. You may disagree as some others do, but the courts have consistently held that we as American citizens have a right to privacy.

Stuart Katz:

“I had a “Eureka” moment, finally grasping and internalizing the potential and real harm that the gross misuse of this NSL process has caused to my Constitutional right to privacy and freedom.”

Go back to sleep Stuart, it was just gas, a gross misuse of the digestive process. I believe Mink questioned the Constitutionality based on the same crank left wing Judge’s decision that found the law unconstitutional three years ago. Since he’s doing it again, we must assume he was reversed by a higher court and will be again.

Supreme Court decisions over the years have established privacy as a basic human right as covered in the 9th amendment. You’ll have to introduce a new amendment if you want a Gestapo state. I would also guess that privacy of personal information is covered by the 5th amendment as well.

I believe it was Mr. Justice Holmes who famously commented that the most basic right of all is the right to be left alone. Forgive me if I misquoted him.

I ask this question: What limits on the investigative powers of the Executive SHOULD exist? I ask it seriously of those who find no problems with the Patriot Act and it’s kin. If a citizen is being investigated and “we can’t tell you because of National Security implications” is the answer he gets to his rightful demand to know why, is that a legitimate answer? Note that I’m talking about CITIZENS here.

hs:

“I ask this question: What limits on the investigative powers of the Executive SHOULD exist? I ask it seriously of those who find no problems with the Patriot Act and it’s kin.”

You have effectively set up a straw man and demolished him before our very eyes. The right to be secure in your home is balanced with the rights of Jihadists and other crazies to roam the land at will and drop in for unannounced political persuasion visits. While Patriot Act opponents are satisfied with criminal prosecution of the offending visitors, many of us are not sure religious crackpots with a death wish are deterred by the possibility of standing before the bar of justice. Families of 9/11 victims may have serious doubts about your idealistic, Utopian fantasies.

“We have heard the House Bill to implement the 9/11 Commission Report also includes provisions to expand the Patriot Act and reform immigration laws in ways not recommended by the commission. We strongly urge you to take these provisions out of the bill, and not vote for any bill that contains them.” (9/11 Families open letter to the House of Representatives, 6 Oct.’04)

IS - Beware. The unencumbered powers you so quickly bestow on W and crew will one day be those of a Democrat. At that point how many times will I be reading your cites to Animal Farm and Big Brother?

mogoid:

“The unencumbered powers you so quickly bestow on W and crew will one day be those of a Democrat.”

I might just have to learn to live with a Democrat being responsible for the security of our nation but I’ll do my part by not tying his hands behind his back to prevent the execution of his duty. It’s a shame you couldn’t do the same for W and crew.