[pdkl95]

> Things have changed dramatically since the constitution was conceived.

If this is true, why aren't all the NSA apologists trying to promote a constitutional amendment? The drafters of the constitution knew that the original document wouldn't be sufficient for the changing needs in the future, and gave a very clear method to modify tour "highest law".

While I suspect I wouldn't agree with such an amendment, I would certainly give the argument for it a full hearing and debate. Given how mixed attitudes are, it's hard to predict how successful such a proposal would be in practice.

What I do know, for now, is that trying to subvert the constitution's guarantees in an attempt to skip the necessary amendment with "vigilante justice" is at a minimum a violation of some people's oath to defend the constitution. At worst, trying to subvert the constitution (and the guarantees it provides) might even qualify as sedition. Reality is probably somewhere between those points, of course.