|
|
|
|
|
|
by jorblumesea
2314 days ago
|
|
|
The constitution is all about checks and balances. There was implicit trust in the government from the very outset of the founding of this country. It was a documented designed to guarantee trust. If you don't trust the checks and balances that the government provides, then the constitution is a worthless piece of paper. Warrants are by definition, a check and balance of sorts, although I understand it doesn't feel that way. Police (executive branch) comes to a judge (judicial branch), who approves or rejects the warrant. The judiciary has the final say over whether the police can search a home, for example. I think it's interesting how many people point to how we need to get back to the roots of constitutionalism, but also say "I never trust anything governments do or say". If that's the case, why do you think the constitution will help you there? The document itself requires huge levels of trust. |
|
|
That's not what I, or the person you are originally replying to is doing. Rather we would say something like "you are asking us to trust the government when it is bypassing or ignoring the checks and balances put into the constitution precisely because of issues like this". For a few examples:
Checks and balances are why the 6th amendment requires to a "speedy and public trial". Which the FISA courts are not providing. They are why the 6th amendment requires the accused to be informed of the "nature and cause of the accusation", which is regularly being violated by these secret proceedings by way of parallel construction.
You bring up the topic of warrants, but warrants (by the 4th amendment) must "upon probable cause [... describe] the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized". From what little we have seen of the FISA proceedings, neither of those conditions are being respected.
You bring up the judicial branch, but the judicial branch is required (by article 3 section 2 of the constitution) to hear only cases and controversies, one sided proceedings that aren't even released publicly after the fact to be challenged are neither. This clause exists (I believe) precisely because one sided arguments lack the necessary checks and balances to reach a fair verdict