WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has declined an early look at a constitutional challenge to the National Security Agency's bulk collection of millions of Americans' telephone records.
|Scooped by Carlos Leon|
Quarter 4, Week 1 (April 7-11)
The Supreme Court on Monday, April 7, declined an early review of a constitutional challenge to the NSA's bulk collection of telephone records. Lawyer Larry Klayman wanted to bypass an appeals court after convincing a federal judge in December that the collection violates the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches. U.S District Judge William Pauley ruled that there was no evidence of the NSA collecting phone data for any reason other than to investigate terrorists. Several other lawsuits are also challenging the NSA's surveillance programs. The ACLU filed a complaint in a New York federal court. Klayman says that the appeals process would be too long of a wait and that the Supreme Court should insist in not waiting out. The Obama administration has defended the NSA program but at the beginning of the year called for a halt to end government accessing phone records and advice to get a secretive courts permissions before attempting to access the records of millions of americans.
In class we covered both the civil liberties and rights of americans and the process of how the justice system works. Here we have the government being accused of accessing americans phone records through spying on them . In the defense of the government, it is for the protection of the citizens against acts of terrorism that may be planned. For the civil suit filers, they insist that the act of collecting private phone records violates there constitutional rights on the basis of the fourth amendment (Unreasonable search and seizures). Lawyer Larry Klayman has worked his way up the justice system to bring this civil case against the agency but has failed to be appealed by the U.S. Supreme Court. He did file the lawsuit in a lower court and has since convinced a judge that it violates the constitution but now fears and argues that the Supreme Court should bypass the appeal and grant him to the court, but the Supreme Court denied his bypass appeal as it 90% of the time, denies cases that could be beneficial to society. He dictates that the appeals process may take too long because of the position of government control to favor that side more than the case itself. It will be a tough grind up the courts once again if it continues to pursue the interest of himself of others to continue to fight back. (Standing to Sue!)