Comment Re:ugh (Score 1) 146
How is this even a question?
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.
That's not even remotely vague. It's clear as day. You need a warrant and that warrant should be public. Period. Any Judge that didn't see this as a violation of the 4th amendment should be strung up without a trial, since they don't feel the constitution is important.
I'm not sure that it's as crystal-clear as you say:
1. Where does it say the warrant must be public? A secret warrant seems like it would qualify as long as it fit the requirements set out.
2. It doesn't explicitly say "all searches require a warrant"; it only refers to "unreasonable searches". Does a reasonable search not require a warrant? In fact, where does this expressly say that any searches require a warrant?
3. Where does it say that this applies to electronic communications (or any non-physical communications)? Are electronic communications "persons, houses, papers, [or] effects"? What's the "place to be searched" if you intercept broadcast information?
One of the great difficulties of constitutional study is that the US constitution is pretty vaguely drafted.