Is that in that Constitution somewhere that you're so loudly trumpeting? Where does it say that? Please cite. Make positively sure that it can't be interpreted any other way, unless you're prepared for me to laugh at you for suggesting that your interpretation is the only correct one. So no, there's no right, and no, these actions aren't shown to be unconstitutional. But thanks.
As promised I will respond to the new issue you raised about the foundation for my statement that warrants need to be narrowly focused on each individual in order to comply with due process. I feel I have answered (or rejected the need to answer) to my satisfaction at least, all of the rest of your other points.
I will point out the fact that (most of) the issues actually arise as the result of massive use of National Security Letters, not warrants. I nevertheless think it remains an issue of Fourth Amendment privacy protection. So an examination of the issues that led to the inclusion of the Fourth Amendment into the Bill of Rights should help explain my position.
Unlike citizens residing in England, American colonists were subject to a general warrant issued to the agents of the King known as a Writ of Assistance. Such writs were permanent, not expiring until six months after the death of the King under whom they were issued. The writs were transferable; i.e. the holder of a writ could assign (sell or give) it to another. Any place could be searched at the whim of the holder, and searchers were not responsible for any damage they caused. Any property suspected by the holder of the writ to be “smuggled goods” could be seized and taken away.
On February 3, 1761 James Otis, a Massachusetts lawyer, argued the case against the use of such general writs before the Superior Court of (the colony of) Massachusetts. He based his case on English common law (law established through a history of prior judicial decisions). Although he lost the case, his 5 hour oration was witnessed by John Adams, who later referred to it as “the spark that ignited the Revolution.”
Otis’s example stoked the flames of colonial anger against such general writs to a point where many colonial legislatures passed rules limiting their issuance. His speech was a foundational element in the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights that stated “That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.”
It also influenced John Adams when he authored Article XIV of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, later enacted into the Massachusetts Constitution in 1780. "Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure: and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities, prescribed by the laws.”
This history led to the specific inclusion of the Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Notice the similarities in language? “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.”
Now you would have us believe that a document purporting to be a subpoena but which acts like a “general warrant,” issued based only upon a vague assumption that among ALL files and records of the calls and internet activities of ALL citizens held by any and all internet and telephone companies with business offices in America, there must be some evidence of a connection to terrorist activity and demanding they be turned over, does not circumvent our Fourth Amendment rights?
It’s like saying that any Federal agency can claim that since it is probable evidence exists somewhere in someone’s house relating to terrorist activities, then here’s a letter notifying you to expect our visit, so please gather up ALL of your records and be prepared to hand them over to us. Where is the probable cause? Where is the specific description of the place to be searched or the things to be seized? Where is the protection from invasion of your expectation of privacy?
Does that help?
