I already know that Chet Edwards (Us House Dist 17) said, basically, that if it came down to security versus the constitution, security would win out. So what's the point of even HAVING a constitution if those who are elected to UPHOLD it don't care to do so? I see today that the House Democrats are going to introduce a bill next week that would

let a secret court issue one-year "umbrella" warrants to allow the government to intercept e-mails and phone calls of foreign targets and would not require that surveillance of each person be approved individually.

You must be kidding me. What's the 4th amendment again?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The rationale in the article quoted above is that this is an attempt to *reconcile* civil liberties with privacy and national security concerns. Let's just exchange the world *reconcile* with *water down* or *ignore*. How can there possibly be a *reconciliation that tromps the constitution? And why is there even ONE Congressperson that can't uphold it? Reviewing the 4th amendment notations, from FindLaw.

Emphasis upon the necessity of warrants places the judgment of an independent magistrate between law enforcement officers and the privacy of citizens, authorizes invasion of that privacy only upon a showing that constitutes probable cause, and limits that invasion by specification of the person to be seized, the place to be searched, and the evidence to be sought. 87 While a warrant is issued ex parte, its validity may be contested in a subsequent suppression hearing if incriminating evidence is found and a prosecution is brought. 88  

The ACLU commented on this proposed bill.

we think that the Constitution requires as a minimum that an individualized warrant is required whenever an American's communications are targeted. This is going to be the big sticking point."

Boy, howdy.

And get this. Just unbelievable. Those umbrella warrants

would clarify that no court order is required for intercepting communications between people overseas that are routed through the United States. It would specify that the collections of e-mails and phone calls could come only from communications service providers -- as opposed to hospitals, libraries or advocacy groups.

But, we know that AT&T has, for example, altered the telecom switches so that foreign calls are routed through the United States. That means that the call you place to anyone for any reason, including all those outsourced places since the US corporations have cut jobs here, go through... AT&T switches.

And does it make you feel any better to know that the government can, without a warrant, collect all your emails, phone calls from your ISP, but not from library, etc? 

Disgusting. If you care about this at all, tell Chet Edwards to quit caving out of fear and stand up for the Constitution.