The NSA ruling: Some fresh air
It could be shaping up as the case that will either affirm one of America's sacred Founding precepts or keep America traveling ever faster down the slippery slope of constitutional relativism.
“Could be,” of course, is the operative phrase.
A federal district judge in Washington, D.C., ruled Monday that the National Security Agency's practice of systematically collecting telephone call data — without a warrant — in the name of “security” to thwart would-be terrorist attacks is an “almost Orwellian” violation of Americans' Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
“Indeed, I have little doubt that the author of our Constitution, James Madison, who cautioned us to beware ‘the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power,' would be aghast,” wrote Judge Richard Leon.
But before anyone takes to toot-tooting any horns of victory in the centuries-old debate over the wisdom of giving up an essential liberty for a little security, there's this sobering reality:
This ruling comes from a single district judge who's attempting to not only overturn a 1979 Supreme Court ruling (as antiquated as it is, given modern technology) but more than a dozen other judges' rulings on more than 30 occasions that such “metadata” collection passes constitutional snuff.
Translation: The odds are long that the ruling, as important and refreshing as it is, will survive on appeal.
Nonetheless, it is an important ruling that can only enhance one of the greatest legal debates of our times.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The revolving door: Washington’s ‘gift’
- U.N. Watch: Another jaded ‘inquiry’
- Expanding Medicaid: Gov.-elect Wolf embraces a false premise
- The Kathleen Kane chronicles: New and serious questions are being raised about the Pa. attorney general
- Sunday pops
- The regulatory state: EPA picks a fight
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- The Box
- Pension reform should not be linked to a natural gas extraction tax
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances