Fourth Amendment v. National Security

This blog tends to focus on the usual police domestic  Fourth Amendment issues.  However, there are lots of issues out there in the area of national security. 







In 2008,  an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act allowed intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on overseas communications,(including e-mails, calls) more broadly and with less judicial oversight
than in the past..  Now, the U.S. government does not have to submit (to a special judge) an  individualized application to monitor a non-American
overseas.  The U.S. attorney
general and  director of national intelligence can ask for mass
surveillance
authorizations from the judge. This is basically a warrant procedure except that the usual 4th Amendment
requirement  of “particularly describing”
is clearly not satisfied.  There are also
issues about the applicability of the Fourth Amendment in at least some of the situations.


The ACLU sued the attorney
general and the director of national intelligence.  The case is
slowly making its way through the judicial system.  The Supreme Court has agreed to hear whether
the Plaintiffs have standing (legal authority) to challenge the act. They will
not decide on the constitutionality of the law--at least not yet.  The name of the case is Clapper v. Amnesty
International U.S.A..
law and justice foundation,law and justice symbol,law justice and morality,law or justice 1988,relationship between law and justice,difference between law and justice,law and justice careers,law and justice essay law and justice foundation,law and justice symbol,law justice and morality,law or justice 1988,relationship between law and justice,difference between law and justice,law and justice careers,law and justice essay