The Preamble of the US Constitution is stating "why" they are creating the document. The rest is how they are attempting to achieve the Preamble's goals. One of which is "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

Common misconceptions about the US Constitution are that it gives rights to the citizenry. It does not, that was the English POV. It guarantees the "inalienable rights" spoken about in the Declaration of Independence and other works of the time to never be infringed upon by the Federal Government. Some of those rights are listed (mainly in the Bill of Rights), some are not. There were arguments at the time that putting in a Bill of Rights may make it seem that if the rights were not listed, they did not exist. Madison, a supporter of the bill of rights, stated that the limits of the central government were listed in the powers section and the list was exhaustive; therefore, the power to infringe on rights did not exist in the central government. He should know, since he wrote the thing, but he felt it was better to be safe than sorry. He was already seeing the abuse of power within the federal government, but I digress...

Inalienable Rights are rights that flow from the creator (as argued by the philosophy of the time), or in modern PC times, rights that are NOT granted by the sovereign king, Parliament, or any other body; democratic or dictatorial, but rights that belong to, ingrained in, and a natural part of ALL humans. So their is little ambiguity in "We the People" except for those that wish to redefine the term.

"I can't believe the bill would pass vote after vote if it were truly so evil." ...."Tell me what specifically is evil."

Banality of evil is a phrase coined by Hannah Arendt and incorporated in the title of her 1963 work Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. It describes the thesis that the great evils in history generally, and the Holocaust in particular, were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths but rather by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal. (from Wikipedia, the source of all knowledge, lol)

Very few people believe what they are doing is evil, most believe that they are making "hard" decisions for the greater good. Hollywood and literary evil is the fiction that hides the truth, good people with good intentions can cause disastrous results if given unlimited power.

Various mental illnesses aside, everyone believes their goals are just. Everyone believes their way is the "right way." Limits on government where put in place to protect others from the majority forcing their "right way" on those with different views.

"as with all liberties, it is not guaranteed by the Constitution"

All liberties are guaranteed by the Constitution! Many argued that the bill of rights should not be added to the Constitution because they feared that adding a list of rights would be construed to mean those where the only rights protected. They added the ninth and tenth amendments to clarify; however, most conveniently ignore them. History has proven their fears justified.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

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

"The Telegraph has an interest in protecting its online blogger's identities while the State has an interest in prosecuting someone who has allegedly murdered a child." That sounded to me like sarcasm on first reading, but actually I think he's just being logically rigorous."

This is not so logically rigorous. The ruling was whether a subpoena could be used to identify "bloggers" not a search warrant. In the statement above, clearly a search warrant could be sought to gain access to records. Much more logically rigorous, and more to the point on how the law would be used, is a situation where a search warrant can not be obtained (because no probable cause exists). The, not perfect mind you, but more logically rigorous evaluation should be "The Telegraph has an interest in protecting its online blogger's identities while the State has an interest in identifying potential threats to society."

How would you like to find yourself on a no fly list because of some rant you posted on a political site? Better yet, would you begin to hesitate making such a rant after a number of your fellow "bloggers" found themselves on a no fly list?