Identity of Whistleblower Behind NSA Leak Revealed

heatlesssun said:

+1. The things is that if the Constitution really did provide a guarantee of privacy I would be much more inclined to be against these programs. There's just no guarantee of privacy of privacy in the Constitution. The 4th Amendment only mentions probable cause and a judge.

The kind of privacy that many mention here requires a new Amendment. I give you the 28th Amendment, which would be more controversial to more Republicans than Roe vs. Wade:



Done. Solved. Pass it if you think your meaningless data is meaningful while getting the most resistance from your political allies.

Click to expand...

The Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing colonial grievances againstKing George III, and by asserting certainnatural and legal rights, including aright of revolution. Having served its original purpose in announcing independence, references to the text of the Declaration were few for the next four score years.Abraham Lincolnmade it the centerpiece of his rhetoric (as in theGettysburg Addressof 1863), and his policies. Since then, it has become a major statement onhuman rights, particularly its second sentence:We hold these truths to be self-evident, thatall men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these areLife, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.This has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language",[5]containing "the most potent and consequential words in American history."[6]The passage came to represent a moral standard to which the United States should strive. This view was notably promoted byAbraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy, and argued that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which theUnited States Constitutionshould be interpreted.[7]It has inspired work for the rights of marginalized people throughout the world.[citation needed]Itprovided inspirationto numerous nationaldeclarations of independencethroughout the world.

Click to expand...

A constitution merely prolongs the pretense that a political government can be limited by laws that it will interpret. Eventually, every constitutional government will embrace Lenin's ruling formula – "Power without limit, resting directly on force."

The function of the judiciary is liturgical: It transmutes the restrictive language of the constitution into a mandate for government action. This process is called "state-building" – and the purpose of the judiciary, insists Professor Jack M. Balkin of Yale Law School, is to "ratify significant revisions to the American social contract."

According to Balkin, "the most important function of the federal courts is to legitimate state building by the political branches." It does this by supplying the appropriate scholarly conjurations every time those in charge of the State seek to enrich their powers at the expense of individual liberty.

In this fashion, the relatively modest constitutional state of the early 19th century – which, Balkin notes with palpable disapproval, "didn’t do very much more than national defense and customs collection" – built itself into the omnivorous monstrosity he calls the "National Surveillance State." This is an entity that claims the authority to slaughter, torture, and imprison anybody on the planet for any reason. From Balkin’s perspective, the role of the courts is not to protect the rights of the individual, but to issue the occasional theodicy justifying the inscrutable ways of the divine State.

"Whenever the federal government expands its capabilities, it changes the nature of the social compact," writes Balkin in The Atlantic. "Sometimes the changes are small, but sometimes, as in the New Deal or the civil rights era, the changes are big. And when the changes are big, courts are called on to legitimate the changes and ensure that they are consistent with our ancient Constitution" – a procedure that frequently involves subjecting language to treatment that even Dick Cheney would describe as torture.

In order for this to work, candor must be scrupulously avoided, and the pretense of constitutionalism must be preserved.

"Courts do not simply rubber stamp what the political branches do," Balkin asserts. "Rather, they set new ground rules. The government may do this as long as it doesn’t do that. Legitimation is Janus-faced: it establishes what government can do by establishing what the government cannot do" – at least, for now, until those running it decide that the time has come to do what was previously impermissible.

That’s what happened in the Obamacare ruling, Balkin concludes: "The political branches sought to build out the American state and change the terms of the American social contract. The Court legitimated this result, but set new ground rules for politics going forward."

As he points out, both branches of the Establishment party want to continue building the Leviathan state, albeit in the service of different constituencies: "Most Republican politicians don’t actually want to strip the federal government of most of the powers to regulate, tax and spend that came with the New Deal. This is because Republican politicians want to use those powers to promote Republican policies…."

Thus it was exquisitely appropriate that the Supreme Court’s ratification of "the most important piece of social welfare legislation since the 1960s" came in a majority opinion written by a Bush-appointed Republican conservative. After all, we should expect adherents of the Party of Lincoln to be doing the works of Abraham.

In his book Our Secret Constitution: How Lincoln Redefined American Democracy, George P. Fletcher, a Marxist Columbia University School of Law professor, describes how the mission of Abraham the Destroyer was not to preserve the constitutional union, but rather to impose a new order – one created through aggression by the central government against the states that created it, and the people from whom it supposedly derived its powers.

"The new order inherits an operating Congress, Executive, and Judiciary," writes Fletcher, and although federal institutions have been "recast in new functions, the forms remained the same." Behind a change in federal functions is a new ruling ideology, in which the central government elite now acts on "the consciousness of setting forth a new framework of government, a structure based on values fundamentally different from those that went before."

"The heart of the new consensus is that the federal government, victorious in warfare, must continue its aggressive intervention in the lives of its citizens," writes Fletcher approvingly. The Founders' Constitution was sold to the populace as an austere and proscriptive document that defined the few and specific things the central government would be permitted to do.

This arrangement was changed through Lincoln's war of aggression, according to Fletcher, since "the liberty that comes to the fore in the intended postbellum constitutional order and under the Secret Constitution requires the intervention of government. Liberty is born in the state's assertion of responsibility to oversee and prevent relationships of oppression." (Emphasis added.)

That is to say that "liberty" is a revocable and highly conditional gift of the State, and that "oppression" exists anywhere there are limits placed on the exercise of federal power. One is "free" only to the extent he supports, and is subject to, the benevolent rule of the unfathomably noble beings who inhabit the Imperial Capital. Questioning their edicts and actions on "constitutional" grounds is intolerably impudent – nay, it is nothing less than blasphemy, since everything our masters do is blessed with the "presumption of constitutionality."

In his recent book It Is Dangerous to be Right when the Government is Wrong, Judge Andrew Napolitano (one of the few jurists worthy of that honorific) underscores the importance of the Supreme Court’s United States v. Carolene Products ruling in 1938.

The case dealt with a federal statute banning the sale of a product called "filled milk." The measure, which was passed as a favor to the dairy lobby, was devoid of constitutional authority – but the Supreme Court upheld it in the interest of "state-building," and in doing so it promulgated a new doctrine of "presumed constitutionality."

"The Court’s reasoning was that the statute should be presumed constitutional, and thus the burden was on the defendant company to prove that Congress could have no constitutional authority and no lawful basis for regulating the sale of the product – a nearly impossible showing," recalls Judge Napolitano. "By requiring a presumption of constitutionality instead of a presumption of liberty, the Court permitted Congress to transgress economic liberties for almost any reason it wished."

That presumption invests the federal government with something akin to constitutional infallibility: Between 1937 and 1995, as Judge Napolitano observes, the Supreme Court didn’t strike down a single piece of federal legislation on constitutional grounds.

Many people blessed with sound, sober, and subtle minds believe that all of this represents a "perversion" of the original constitution. Others, such as the ever-perspicacious Butler Shaffer, insist that the federal government has "never deviated" from the Constitution: The document was written in a way that encouraged government expansion and provided the means to accomplish it while sustaining the necessary illusion that its powers were effectively limited by law and its administrators were in some sense accountable to the people they rule.

Any governmental charter permitting seizure of property through "eminent domain" and the suspension of habeas corpus (the irreducible due process guarantee) for any reason is latently totalitarian at best; those provisions offer a glimpse of the "secret constitution" described by Fletcher, in which federal power is limited only by the ingenuity and brazenness of those who wield it.

Many conservatives reacted to Judge Roberts’ Obamacare ruling by giving voice to the same pious outrage they express every time the Supreme Court redefines the "social contract." A healthier reaction would be to ask: Why should any individual be governed by a "contract" that he never signed, and that the other party can unilaterally revise at its pleasure?

Click to expand...

TheMadHatterXxX said:

I am conductor of the poop train!

Click to expand...

heatlesssun said:

Congress passed these laws and it is their responsibility to repeal them, not the President's.

Click to expand...

Ice Czar said:

so a no fly list of 8 million half a decade ago
wonder if its grown

Click to expand...

Ice Czar said:

and all the occupy moonbats too

Click to expand...

BBA said:

Like the 40+ publically significant people who died of mysteriously odd circumstances, all at just the perfect critical time of providing testimony in the multiple Clinton scandals during Bill's presidency?

I don't think being a publically known figure will protect anyone with the anyone in office.

Click to expand...

Conker said:

Government Keeps List of 8 Million Names Considered Threats

A list of some 8 million or more names compiled by the CIA and U.S. intelligence. The individuals on the Main Core list, he writes, will be rounded up after the Constitution is suspended and and martial law imposed.


Pretty intense

Click to expand...

Qinsp said:

As far as the Constitution being suspended ...

Yes, there will be a second Civil War in the USA.

Have 30 days water, a generator, medical supplies, 50 gallons of fuel, and at least 1000 rounds of rifle ammo, AP if you can.

Click to expand...

Alex spoke with a telecom industry insider who broke news of the widespread government surveillance dragnet intercepting data, phone calls, e-mails, videos and pictures a day before the NSA’s PRISM scandal went public.

Click to expand...

Conker said:

Exclusive: Insider Speaks Out On NSA Spying




Other info people probably missed. Second civil war will happen but it will take a lot for an average American to do anything. Most won't even turn on their tv if they can't find the remote. A lot are too submissive.

Click to expand...