1 edit | reply to vpoko
Re: WELLLLLLLLL... It wasn't given to us as a constitutional interpretation. It was a interpretation of old telecom laws used to give the american public the privacy (read: check and ballances) they desired from government/law enforcement/corporate spying.
Perhaps it's you who needs a lesson in civics? Especially since you essentially agree with what I said, but seemed compelled to draw a needless distinction to assert I was wrong somehow?
And what "constitutional" challenge is there to the executive (the PROPER term to use, instead of "the president") branches actions in this case? There is NO basis for a constitutional challenge here. Otherwise it would have been brought by now.
The "right" to privacy, such as it is, is only what the government has given the public in statutes, because the public demanded them. There is no "right" to privacy in the constitution, except for ones person, papers, and home. |
