How are you construing an unconstitutional surveillance program as a political question?
I don't see how any of the Court Cases listed on the wikipedia article are relevant. These all seem to relate to truly political things, like which branch has what authority, or how districts are apportioned. The article only cites 5 areas the courts have clear precedent on - wars, treaties, gerrymandering, impeachment, as well as the Guarantee clause. The Guarantee clause relates to Article 4 though, not Amendment 4.
If we are construing this NSA wire-tapping as a war power, then we're in trouble, because we have now effectively agreed the written words of the Patriot Act have no meaning, and the constitution will never be applied uniformly to the executive.
I'm not all that sure it is unconstitutional, for one thing - aren't you begging the question here? And on a more general level, shouldn't you be considering precedent on justiciability, rather than basing your whole argument on your personal opinion of the waht the constitution means?
I might note in asssing that I favor a constitutional amendment that would create an explicit right to privacy; I'm not in favor of a surveillance state. But that doesn't alter my skepticism about how a class action lawsuit would actually fare in the courts.
FISA courts may be unconstitutional, as in they don't satisfy the requirements for Article III courts, and FISA courts are the only valve on this behavior (such as they are). Congress is only told what is going on, and not very much (and to very few members) at that.
Please explain to me how a "constitutional amendment creating an explicit right to privacy" would do fuck all if the only body that assesses constitutionality won't allow us to complain when that right is breached.
You're allowed to complain, but they may not agree that your complaint has any merit. You don't seem like the sort of person who's into changing their mind though, so I don't really know what to tell you. You could try checking out some books on Constitutional law from the library to get a better understanding of how this works.
You did not address my point. "It won't happen because the court does not believe you have any rights that have been violated" is something that can be fixed by a constitutional amendment granting an explicit right to privacy, but seems to me a different claim than "it's just politics," and the court has supported a right to privacy in the past (though it's complicated). Obviously, the court may or may not consider us to have a right to privacy, may not consider the right to extend that far, &c, &c. Those still seem qualitatively different than what you'd lead with. What am I actually missing?
I fucking love changing my mind, but it takes actually convincing me, not simply argument from authority without even any credentials given. "Go read a bunch of books" is bad form (doubly so with no particular recommendations) - I have plenty on my reading list as it stands.
I don't see how any of the Court Cases listed on the wikipedia article are relevant. These all seem to relate to truly political things, like which branch has what authority, or how districts are apportioned. The article only cites 5 areas the courts have clear precedent on - wars, treaties, gerrymandering, impeachment, as well as the Guarantee clause. The Guarantee clause relates to Article 4 though, not Amendment 4.
If we are construing this NSA wire-tapping as a war power, then we're in trouble, because we have now effectively agreed the written words of the Patriot Act have no meaning, and the constitution will never be applied uniformly to the executive.