NSA Monitoring of Phone Records (June 2013): Why do many everyday Americans think they know the Fourth Amendment better than a host of federal judges and President Obama, himself a Harvard-educated scholar of Constitutional law?

The Constitution isn't a pop quiz with a right or wrong answer and it certainly isn't science.  While many of your so called experts may have studied constitutional law longer and/or read and are familiar with more cases, that doesn't make them right and us mere mortals wrong.  Decisions involving privacy, Fourth Amendment and national security require complex analysis and tradeoffs.  One's values, background, fears and yes, biases, enter into the picture as much if not more than one's book knowledge of precedent.  It's like Art History, there may be experts but one man's Picasso can still be another man's junk.  One should respect constitutional scholars but need not defer or genuflect to them.

Obama himself has told us that the Supreme Court can't be trusted, because they make decisions that say that free speech isn't forfeited by individuals who form groups. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission#American_politicians On the other hand, the Supreme Court tells us that Obama can't be trusted to interpret the constitution, with streams of unanimous decisions against him and his administration. A host of federal judges, including the Supreme Court, constantly reiterate how little Obama knows about the law. Between the speech and actions of the president and the Supreme Court, it's pretty easy to lose faith in both (if you believe both). If you want to know who to blame for a lack of faith in these institutions, look at Obama's criticism of the court, and the court's recognition that Obama has repeatedly interpreted the constitution in favor of more power for himself, across all domains, beyond what the Supreme Court finds constitutional. In this specific case, it's even easier, because they're saying we can't even know how they're interpreting it (how's that for democracy?), let alone their logic for interpretation. The Supreme Court hasn't signed off on it (because it's so secret, nobody has had standing yet), and the other courts won't even admit to whether or not they've reviewed it (so it's also possible that NO courts have agreed to some of it). Given that the executive branch has had that no warrants are needed for some activities, it is certain that NO courts have reviewed some of these activities. We've also seen that Obama doesn't have absolute control over every executive branch employee, so even if he takes a conservative view of what the constitution allows (not likely, given past history), hundreds of thousands of others without any legal training can still act contrary to the constitution. Again, this is with, at best, limited oversight (no judicial oversight, if random person X decides a warrant isn't required). If I draw the name of a random NSA contractor working for a private company, with 3 months of training, out of a hat, would you state with certainty that the analyst will know the constitution better than the collective United States, including all the lawyers and judges in the United States? In the case of the whistle blower, everyone points out that there's no reason we should defer to him. But if it's his cube neighbor, let's just go on deferring to that person. No warrant required, no judicial oversight required, and not even executive branch oversight required (random government contractors don't count as executive branch, which is part of why they are used - they can get away with more).

Well now..... isnt this a remarkable viewpoint. Do you normally abdicate your responsibility to think this quickly? If a person goes to college and gets a degree in religous studies does his opinion instantly carry more weight in terms of which religion you should choose? Maybe only vets should have pets.... or maybe only physicians and social workers should have kids? Maybe only engineers should be allowed to speak on the quality of your childs swingset...... ad nauseum. How about america has fought wars based on the premise that the secret gathering of infomation, imprisoning of people without due process, secret prison camps, torture, restricting travel and all the various other ways in which the national socialist party, the russian communist movement and all the others oppressors of freedom large and small that have wasted the very air they breathe have done an injustice to their respective populations byt stripping them of those freedoms. How about you read about how the final solution was one that was implemented incrementally so that the populace would have a chance to become comfy with the loss of that particular freedom? How about how during the war atrocious experiments were perpetrated on the people in the prison camps and justified because the ones leading the experiments were "experts in the field". How about you come to the startling conclusion that experts are not infallible, not subject to the same social and mental forces that help us form our opinions and frankly can have their heads buried in their collective asses to a life threatening depth? Ignorance comes in many forms and a piece of paper does not immunize the bearer against this problem.

I can answer this because I am an everyday American.  In fact, I am frankly shocked to learn there is any other kind.  A lot of people think some sort of specialized education is necessary to understand law.  In fact, law is no more than the application of logic to language.  Anybody can do that, though not everybody is good at it. In fact it was and is everyday Americans who wrote our laws and constitution.  Why should you think we can't understand them? There are many people who make a handsome income year after year "explaining" it all to us. They like it when we think it is all too much for us.  Go figure. Sometimes the law is inadequate to resolve a governmental problem the solution of which is hampered by this or that so-called right.  The conflict moves up the chain (usually with wildly disparate lower court rulings from professionals) to the Supreme Court.  When SCOTUS decides to screw the people and their rights, they always run the same play.  If you read the words "balancing test" in one of their opinions, most likely it's oops there goes another rubber tree right. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?  Well, were still here after 226 years aren't we?  Nobody's perfect and no body is perfect.  If you want to know the legal principle here, find a Latin teacher and ask him to translate "The Dude Abides". Seriously folks.  This is what law actually really is.  Now relax.  Your life will resume shortly.

The reason is that too many politicians and lawyers use their expertise to try and get around the Constitution and do what they think is right or nesessary.  While  most laymen see the Constitution as a shield from potential government oppression.  A shield that must be preserved.  Its not that we are smarter than Obama, its that we have different goals.  His is to go down in history, in spite of the Constitution if necessary.  Ours is to protect our way of life, in spite of him if necessary.

One does not need to be highly educated to understand that the ideas written in the clear simple language of the fourth amendment have been abrogated time and again for political purposes.   Ostensibly, the NSA program in question was initiated as a response to the terrorist threats to America as demonstrated by the attacks on 9/11. And further broadened for various stated reasons. In reviewing the case law cited elsewhere, I found it interesting that most of these cases were decided since 1972, the year Richard Nixon was reelected.   A full 66% of these cases were decided since 1972. Three cases, out of a total of 43, were decided before 1940. Astoundingly, there were no decisions regarding the fourth amendment during or immediately subsequent to WW II or WW I. Apparently we didn't need as much security in the middle of a full blown world war as we do during peacetime.

Ah, Mr Anonymous.  How nice for you to post another question here on Quora. Perhaps because, unlike them, we have not been corrupted by having immense power over the lives of our fellow citizens, as we would in the office of the President or the Supreme Court. Perhaps because, unlike them, we are not shielded by special governmental perquisites, authorities and exemptions which they enjoy, and will continue to enjoy after leaving office. Perhaps because, unlike them, we don't have Secret Service units ensuring our safety, security and privacy. Perhaps because we actually have to rely on the Constitution to protect us and therefore actually have skin in the game.

First, just to establish why the is even relevant it's important to understand that the USA is not a democracy. It's a republic with a constitution. The important difference is that in a democracy the majority can impose laws on a minority regardless of any factors that might make said law unfair. In a republic, the constitution contains specific legislation to prevent that happening. Constitutions for various republics, the USA is not the only one, typically also contain legislation attempting to limit the ability for any branch of government to abuse its power. It works far from perfectly but a republic is in many ways, for many people, much better than a democracy.That being said, with the understanding that the constitution is there to protect minorities and the general population from an abusive government, what was the 4th Amendment originally enacted to do. The text of the Amendment reads: "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." One of the issues is that, in a number of instances, digital "papers" have not been afforded the same protection as physical documents. Even is actively fighting the case that you can't expect your email to be private from them.Much of the recent argument revolves around privacy of your digital content that does not reside on your personal devices but on servers owned by some service provider. In addition, who owns your network traffic once it leaves your home network?The internet has changed the world in a lot of ways and both the government and many otherwise "good" companies are fighting to limit how far your rights extend online. I can only hope that as the generation that grew up not knowing a world without the internet goes into office, we will see legislation with a better understanding of technology.

In asking this question, you presume that the program had been tested in court. But it had only been approved by a FISC instead of through proper review. Once it was allowed to be reviewed, it was deemed unlawful.