A Question Of Constitutionality And The NSA
President George W. Bush is under attack and he came out fighting. He insisted he had the right as President to authorize the National Security Agency(NSA) to eavesdrop on international calls and emails. According to the 4th Amendment and the division of powers he does not have that right if the tab is on a naturalized or native citizen of the United States and in the jurisdiction of the United States.
The Constitution states why it was put into effect and starts off with the words “We the people” and then goes on to give several reason, one of which is to protect the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. It obviously only is extending the blessing of liberty to the people of the United States and not Aliens.
The Fourteenth Amendment when describing citizens states “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” where thereof is the United States. So at least according to the Fourteenth Amendment a person outside the jurisdiction of the United States is not a citizen of the United States. This clause is there out of respect for the jurisdiction of other countries.
The Fourteenth Amendment also states “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” which shows that Aliens can have their privileges or immunities abridges as they do not have any. The limit here is a security issue as another clause in the preamble is to provide for the common defense.
Two clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment do apply to Aliens and they are due process of law and equal protection under the law. In the first case there is no indication that they are extended any rights normally given to a citizen of the United States. The later is also stripped of the privileges or immunities given to citizens. The reason Aliens are treated like this is that Foreign policy dictates how they are treated, and that is dictated by Congress and the President.
Now if he is authorizing the monitoring of American citizens in American jurisdiction he is in violation of the Fourth Amendment but the Constitution gives him that authority to act for the general good because he is the executive officer of the United States. The Senate then has the option to impeach him or if they feel his action is not justified. The citizens can use their rights to protest, speech, protest, petition, vote, and the press to object. The Supreme Court can also weigh in. Abraham Lincoln and Richard Nixon acted defiantly with vastly different results. Each officer of the public whether elected or appointed takes an oath to defend the Constitution but ultimately it is the voters that hold them to that oath.
The Constitution states why it was put into effect and starts off with the words “We the people” and then goes on to give several reason, one of which is to protect the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. It obviously only is extending the blessing of liberty to the people of the United States and not Aliens.
The Fourteenth Amendment when describing citizens states “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” where thereof is the United States. So at least according to the Fourteenth Amendment a person outside the jurisdiction of the United States is not a citizen of the United States. This clause is there out of respect for the jurisdiction of other countries.
The Fourteenth Amendment also states “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” which shows that Aliens can have their privileges or immunities abridges as they do not have any. The limit here is a security issue as another clause in the preamble is to provide for the common defense.
Two clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment do apply to Aliens and they are due process of law and equal protection under the law. In the first case there is no indication that they are extended any rights normally given to a citizen of the United States. The later is also stripped of the privileges or immunities given to citizens. The reason Aliens are treated like this is that Foreign policy dictates how they are treated, and that is dictated by Congress and the President.
Now if he is authorizing the monitoring of American citizens in American jurisdiction he is in violation of the Fourth Amendment but the Constitution gives him that authority to act for the general good because he is the executive officer of the United States. The Senate then has the option to impeach him or if they feel his action is not justified. The citizens can use their rights to protest, speech, protest, petition, vote, and the press to object. The Supreme Court can also weigh in. Abraham Lincoln and Richard Nixon acted defiantly with vastly different results. Each officer of the public whether elected or appointed takes an oath to defend the Constitution but ultimately it is the voters that hold them to that oath.
posted by Kerwin | 7:11 PM
1 Comments:
This may be one of those times when we give the president the benefit of doubt until such time as it becomes evident that he exceeded his authority.
The problem with that, at least in our current day and time, is that roughly half of our citizenry would just as soon not believe anything the president has to say regardless of facts.
I do not believe in extending basic rights granted under the constitution to those who are not citizens of our country. By extention of that thought, I do not willingly give up any rights outlined in the constitution to any citizen of our country, to include those being debated in the so called Patriot Act. Any time a right is voluntarily abandoned, it is gone forever. Shame on us if we seek for temporary "safety" at such a terrible expense.
Thanks for stopping by my blog. TF
Post a Comment
<< Home