The CNET Lounge forum

General discussion

Isn't State Secrecy Priv. Unconstitutional?

by wizardjs / May 5, 2006 12:33 PM PDT

Can't the State Secrecy Priveledge not be used since it violates the constitution under this case. The Bill of Rights guarantees that "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." Notice the phrase, secure in their houses?

SO..... If the NSA room at AT&T is real, it is unconstitutional, so the lawsuit can't be struck down by the SSP because that would mean that the government could violate the constitution. Since the basis of America is the constitution and BOR, they can't use some vestige of British law to strike down a case that violates the highest law of the land.

Tom, you know a lot about law, what do you think?
Also, does anyone know where the SSP is actually written? Is it in the constitution, All the articles I've read just say it came from England.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Isn't State Secrecy Priv. Unconstitutional?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Isn't State Secrecy Priv. Unconstitutional?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
simple fix
by punterjoe / May 5, 2006 10:58 PM PDT

We'll just declare the constitution a classified document then anyone who references it's protections will be a de facto leaker/enemy of the state Wink
And it would make oaths of office go much quicker if people didn't have to pretend to swear allegiance to it since it can't be publicly discussed or even acknowledged.
This should probably relate to tech somehow - so what's say we just encrypt the thing so that only 'authorized authorities' (sounds like a suitably recursive phrase for a gvt title) can access it?

Collapse -
Why not, Reading the Constitution, is Unconstitutional.
by Redhats Q / May 7, 2006 1:10 PM PDT

I read an arguement recently from the records of the US Supreme court stating that "reading the writings of the Founding Fathers in US schools would Violate the Constitution" But the constitution being a work of the founding fathers, and based on their intent for society would thus be invalidated, and could not be read, and thus could not be used as the basis for arguing that the writings of the Founding Fathers should not be available in Schools


At least here we only have to go back to the Magna Carter, which is Much easier to undersand, and Limited in scope.

Collapse -
State Secret Privlege
by adkinsjm / May 8, 2006 2:17 AM PDT

The NSA wiretapping and state secrets privelege are two separate legal issues. The ssp is about the government being able to withhold evidence if it is a state secret. It is based on English common law, which the U.S government and all state governments with the exception of Louisiana use. Louisiana uses civil law, which is French based.

Collapse -
The Tenth Right under the Bill of Rights....
by cardsbb9 / May 8, 2006 3:50 AM PDT
In reply to: State Secret Privlege

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively..."

So, unless the constitution expressly prohibits individual states from keeping secrets (which it does not) then the states retain that right.

Collapse -
Common Law
by adkinsjm / May 8, 2006 8:29 AM PDT

If you want to get technical, the Constitution also designates the president as Commander-in-chief, which Pres. Bush used to justify domestic wiretapping and sending unlawful enemy combatants to Gitmo. So what is the correct interpretation, an article in the Constitution of the 10th amendment? Courts will usually defer to the president in regard to state secrets, especially since it is based in common law. State secrets could also be justified under the commander-in-chief duty of the president as well.

I am not saying I agree with the arguement, but that's what it is based on.

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?