The fourth amendment specifically was designed to prohibit general warrants. How could collecting every piece of phone data be perceived as anything but a general warrant?
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
In 1979, the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 in Smith v. Maryland that a few days' worth of phone records for a single individual were not protected by the Fourth Amendment. The NSA today, though, collects hundreds of millions of phone records from hundreds of millions of Americans without an individualized warrant.
Whether you breach the Fourth Amendment 20 percent of the time or 100 percent of the time, it's still not the point. The point is whether or not you still collect millions of people's information with a single warrant.
The erosion of privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment, written to protect us against unreasonable search and seizure, began in earnest under President George W. Bush.
The Supreme Court must strike down the government's illegal spying program as a violation of our Fourth Amendment right to privacy.
Statutes authorizing unreasonable searches were the core concern of the framers of the 4th Amendment.
With police wielding unprecedented powers to invade privacy, tap phones and conduct searches seemingly at random, our civil liberties are in a very precarious condition.
How can you be conservative and justify wiretapping people without a warrant? We're supposed to be the party of personal freedom and civil liberties.
I'm not against the NSA. I'm not against spying; I'm not against looking at phone records.
Despite being in public life, I value my own privacy immensely and would be as concerned as anyone else if I thought my mobile phone records could be easily available to officials across government.
The president overstepped his authority when he asked the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans' international phone calls without obtaining a warrant.
No opposing quotes found.