[uvdiv]

Checks and balances are functioning perfectly. Congress voted for Patriot Act §215, President Bush signed it into law, President Obama and his congress reauthorized it, and the courts did not overturn it. The law has sat on the books, very publicly, for more than a decade, and has offered myriad opportunities for citizens to debate and challenge (an example: [1]). The broader issue of NSA dragnets is probably one of the top 20 political issues in the US, making regular headlines since 2005 (if you include foreign dragnets, 1995 [2] or earlier).

Checks and balances aren't broken. This is democracy in action.

[1] http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-national-security-technology...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Controversy

[mtgx]

There's no real oversight, and they are using "secret Courts" and "secret interpretations" even of these obscure and very vague laws.

[_delirium]

It isn't really particularly obscure or vague. The Patriot Act authorizes exactly this (and many other things), explicitly and openly.

[nullc]

Which section of the §215 authorizes this activity?

[Domenic_S]

ACLU explains §215: http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-national-security-technology...

(note: "§" means "section")

[darkarmani]

It doesn't sound like "balance" when all three branches are on the same side of the seesaw.

[pekk]

"checks and balances" does not mean "the Supreme Court is in a state of perpetual partisan war with the executive," for example.