7/23/2019 ConstitutionDayExtraCreditINTL401

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/constitutiondayextracreditintl401 1/5

Constitution Day Extra Credit INTL401

by David Doolittle

9/17/2015

Lists te sear! tool and "ilters you used to "ind your arti!le#

I limited the initial APUS library search to papers released in the past two years, and

applied a filter to only government reviews on constitutional intelligence issues. In doing so I

 believe my source to be timely and credible, a Congressional Research Service report on the

issue !".

$u%%ari&es te issue in 'uestion#

After edward snowden#s revelations in $%&' to the global public about the e(tent of the

 )ational Security Agency*s )SA" bul+ data collection program, Congress initiated discussion

on the constitutional legality of such a program as prompted by general consensus on the

necessity of the issue.

Identi"ies te (rti!le o" te Constitution )i! bears on te 'uestion# and*

he article in -uestion is the th Article, ! Amendment. /owever the discussion can

include the &st Article Section 0, 'rd Article Section $, the th Article &st and th amendments

for additional consideration.

+rovides a !on!ise ar,u%ent "or )y you believe te ele%ent* o-eration* or e""ort is or is

not !onsistent )it te .$ Constitution

In $%%& the Patriot Act was passed by Congress to prevent domestic and foreign

terrorism. he act became US law according to the relation to the powers vested in Congress by

the constitution Article &, Section 0" to create legislation in 1common defense2 of the people

and 1o ma+e all 3aws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into 4(ecution the

foregoing Powers2 5". Provisions in the Patriot Act that defined those foregoing powers were

7/23/2019 ConstitutionDayExtraCreditINTL401

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/constitutiondayextracreditintl401 2/5

timed to e(pire. At e(piration these provisions could be reinstated or ratified if necessary by a

vote in Congress. 6ne provision tas+ed to provide common defense, the intelligence community

could collect bul+ records of electronic data in the foreign and domestic environments 7". 8or

the ne(t decade and a half the )SA found ample success in supporting the prevention of

domestic and international terrorism with the bul+ data collection programs &". he revelation of 

the program, already in part written in the Patriot Act, brought staunch criticism of its

constitutionality.

9ul+ data collection of a person#s phone or online records was considered a violation of the

constitutional Article , Amendment !" right to 1the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and sei:ures "2. he media

interpreted the term ;bul+# as meaning all people in the United States and pro<ected that belief tothe public. =hen in fact the )SA stated with several responses, during congressional

-uestioning, )SA director >eith Ale(ander defended the program utili:ed reasonable and

rationable circumstances as primary evidence for selecting individuals for data collection &".

he mainstream media led the general public to believe every person*s phone records and online

metadata were under surveillance. 4vidence +ey to definitions of domestic or foreign terrorists

needed to be present for the program to begin collection on an individual according to the

Congressional Research Service Report !". he program then itself had 1probable cause2 in

compliance with the Patriot Act and the constitutional wording Article , Amendment !" .

Additional criticism revolved around the issue of search of one persons houses papers and effects

without 1warrants2. he claim was the data was personal property of the individual being

searched and doing so would be an infringement on their !th amendment rights to collect the

data. Actually data can be considered a grey area in regards to the issue of property. According to

the the constitution Article ', Section $" the US Supreme Court#s 1<udicial Power shall e(tend to

all Cases, in 3aw and 4-uity, arising under this Constitution, the 3aws of the United States5"2.

o this date no standing supreme court has defined computer generated data as property. he

internet and telecommunications company facilitate user data creation. A internet user creating

content, the data is a property of the internet service provider or the website the user is

interacting with. e(t or calls, the data is property of the telecommunications company.

?oluntarily or with compensation the proprietary right to that data can be provided to the )SA,

7/23/2019 ConstitutionDayExtraCreditINTL401

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/constitutiondayextracreditintl401 3/5

and should be considered constitutional to do so. In addition the data collection should be

compensated according to the Constitution Article , Amendment " 1nor shall private property

 be ta+en for public use, without <ust compensation "2. his relevant to the constitutionality of

the program as the data, property of the facilitator, possibly can be used as evidence in a court

trial. Case in point, metadata from online activity and te(t records are not personal property

under the current interpretation of the constitution. @a+ing the bul+ collection of data by the

 )SA constitutional until the provision ma+ing it a congressionally passed lawful activity e(pires.

he other public concern constituted of the )SA collecting recordings of phone conversations as

 part of the bul+ data collection program.

irect interception of communication between individuals re-uires a warrant. Bour spo+en

words, regardless if they are derogatory of the government or communicating with a spouse whatis dinner, are protected under the right of free speech covered in the constitution Article ,

Amendment &". Phone conversation surveillance by any body of the government is supposed to

re-uire at least a warrant and e(panded surveillance a 8ISA warrant from a federal <udge. he

 program under constitutional scrutiny is the bul+ collection of data, not phone conversations. A

concerned public has misinterpreted what the bul+ collection program was. =hen that provision

e(pired, the public opinion of the measure ensured a heated debate about the constitutionality of

the bul+ data program. Relevancy of evidence to interpretations that presented the bul+ data

collection program as being constitutional gave way to ignorance on the fear it was being used

against the people. 6utward appearance to see the potential for malicious use of this program,

 prompted it to be a provision of the Patriot act severely unfavorable by the US general public.

he timing is dangerous to not consider the benefits of reinstituting the provisions enabling bul+

data collection. /omegrown lone wolf attac+s are being credited as significant national security

threats by the irector of )ational Intelligence and /omeland Security $". Conte(tual analytics

of bul+ data could provide comprehensive understanding behind behavior indicators of lone wolf 

attac+ers based on online activities or fre-uency of phone activity with a federal office. he

threat from the Islamic State sending trained soldiers bac+ to commit attac+s on US soil is a

rising concern in the USIC '". heir main recruitment tool has been social media, collaborating

future new sources of bul+ data could uncover if the group uses 8aceboo+ or witter to issue

attac+ orders.

7/23/2019 ConstitutionDayExtraCreditINTL401

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/constitutiondayextracreditintl401 4/5

=eighing every complaint made about the constitutional bul+ data collection program by the

 )SA is a discussion the American people needed to have, only when the provision e(pired.

Snowden robbed us of that right, because he deemed the program unconstitutional, then too+ it

upon himself to reveal the ;truth# to the world. It begs the -uestion if many who support his

decision, really understand the US constitution at all his program had its follies but according

to this interpretation was aligned with the constitution. @any other interpretations will use

different evidence to prove the bul+ data collection was unconstitutional. hat is one of the

miracles of the US Constitution, how fle(ible yet resilient it has remained after $$0 years. It*s

malleable to interpretation, and because of it we have this freedom many other countries

constitutions ignore we are able to have discussions such as this one. /appy constitution day

$%&D

=or+s CitedE

&.Carroll, Rory. F)SA irector >eith Ale(ander efends Surveillance actics in Speech to

/ac+ers.F he Independent. Guly '&, $%&'. Accessed September &5, $%&.

httpHwww.theguardian.comworld$%&'<ul'&nsaJ+eithJale(anderJblac+JhatJsurveillance.

$./owell, >ellan. F/S Report =arns of omestic RightJwing error hreat.F =ashington

imes. 8ebruary $&, $%&. Accessed September &5, $%&.

httpHwww.washingtontimes.comnews$%&feb$&dhsJintelligenceJreportJwarnsJofJdomesticJ

rightJwi.

'.FISIS 4(ploits Social @edia to @a+e Inroads in U.S. J C)).com.F C)). Gune , $%&.

Accessed September &5, $%&. httpHwww.cnn.com$%&%5%!usisisJsocialJmediaJrecruits.

!.3iu, 4dward C. F6verview of Constitutional Challenges to )SA Collection Activities and

Recent evelopments.F April &, $%&!. Accessed September &5, $%&.

.Fhe 9ill of RightsH A ranscription.F )ational Archives and Records Administration. Accessed

September &5, $%&. httpHwww.archives.gove(hibitschartersbillKofKrightsKtranscript.html

5.Fhe Constitution of the United StatesH A ranscription.F )ational Archives and Records

Administration. Accessed September &5, $%&.

httpHwww.archives.gove(hibitschartersconstitutionKtranscript.html.

7/23/2019 ConstitutionDayExtraCreditINTL401

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/constitutiondayextracreditintl401 5/5

7.Fhe USA Patriot Act.F 6ctober $5, $%%&. Accessed September &5, $%&.

httpHwww.gpo.govfdsysp+gP3A=J&%7publ5pdfP3A=J&%7publ5.pdf  .