So if a person gives aid and comfort to the enemy (Article Three, Section 3) by revealing state secrets, let's say in print in a paper, during a war as declared by Congress (Article One, Section 8), which right wins: the constitutional definition of treason, or the right to free speech contained in the First Amendment? Remember, you said "your right to speak is specifically protected by the Constitution, without caveats".
Now you're talking about two conflicting Constitutional questions. Totally different issue because the Constitution tells exactly how to resolve that dispute: the courts.
That is what I have been saying.
It's just that I can see that the world is in color, not just black and white.
It is not about the world or how I or you think it should be or is. It is about acknowledging that we will always disagree about what color the world is; and agreeing to some guidelines that both of us think is acceptable enough to make the world as awesome as possible. It is about what the Constitution says, or doesn't say; why it says it; and what happens if you ignore it. That document is the end-all-be-all of our entire system of government. It is supposed to sit there for those moments when there is doubt as to whether or not something the government is doing is acceptable by the people. It is supposed to answer whatever burning question you have as to whether or not the government has the right to do something. That is truly what the Constitution is: a definition of the government's rights, not ours; we KNOW our rights for they are inherent and inalienable. We collectively decided that we will "give up" some, specific, rights in the interest of obtaining all the benefits a central government has to offer. To make it absolutely clear which rights we were willing to give up, and what the government could do with them, the Constitution was written. It can only do its job if we always agree on what it says. Not what it should say, but what it actually says.
Agreed.
When somebody decides "Section {whatever} doesn't apply in situation X because I don't think it should" (and that is what any argument boils down to if you're not citing some other part of the Constitution), they change the Constitution. The moment somebody justifies violating the Constitution with a reason other than some other part of the Constitution, that justification has just been implicitly included in the document. As those other reasons are not codified in the Constitution, they are included arbitrarily and open to any interpretation the powers de jour feel like. And as the entire decision to include or exclude is without rules or bounds, that means the government's powers are likewise without rules or bounds.
Also agree, but then the problem of language is always there. Two people can read the same sentence in the Constitution and think it means two different things. To quote Bill Clinton "It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is."
By saying there are exceptions to the rules as specified in the Constitution, you are saying there is no limit to the government's power for any right, at any time, can be justified as being too important; or too minor; or not intended by the framers; or not applicable to the times; to deny to the government. That is why we're here today, in this situation. Because at some point in the past, somebody decided that Section XYZ didn't apply. So now anybody and their mother is using that same logic to say the 4th Amendment doesn't apply. The debate going on today is "when can the government violate citizen's rights?", but that question was already answered over 250 years ago with a detailed list!
I mostly agree, but now we get to the crux of the problem. My statements have been about how rights have exceptions because at times they will conflict with other rights, and only one can be honored. As you said before, when rights conflict the courts act as the arbitrator. This is true to a point, since before then, when such a conflict exists, Congress can create a law to settle the conflict. As long as the law doesn't tip the fairness too far in one direction the courts will abide by it. The basic argument regarding the NSA's actions is to what degree do actions to protect your right to live in this country and have it continue to exist (i.e. right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) balance against other rights such as those contained in the fourth amendment. I believe it is not an all one way or the other, and I think there is a valid argument regarding the need for balance. I also think the NSA and the President have gone beyond their powers and acted unconstitutionally. And before someone says it, no, this is not a contradiction of thought or cognitive dissonance.
If the President or Congress feels there is a situation where the 4th Amendment doesn't apply, they can damn well put it to a vote and have the Constitution changed legitimately; for that process is detailed clearly and has been used successfully many times. There is never a need, justification, or right for the government to violate the Constitution.
Never.
I agree that there is never a need or justification to deliberately violate the Constitution, but when Congress or the courts balances one right against another, is that a violation, since if so, it is a no-win situation. One of the rights must be violated since they conflict and cannot both be honored.
