• No, there is no suspicion.

    No, the NSA surveillance is not constitutional, because it collects information for no reason. The government should not be keeping information about the general activities of its people. The government should allow people to live their lives, unless the people give the government a legitimate reason to think that they are dangerous.

  • NSA surveillance is constitutional.

    NSA surveillance can be considered constitutional.NSA surveillance can be considered constitutional for several different reasons.First of all it is considered for the greater well being which many times outweighs individual rights.Second much research has shown that the majority of the people support the program and the constitution is based on democratic rule.

  • You see, i saw a penguin once

    I went on a trip. That trip was to the south of here. I saw a penguin. There you have it. The stuff is constitutional. Tada. SO you see i saw this guy and he was eating a poptart. However, that poptart was the flavor of cow udder mixed with extra mushrooms and a beef sandwich pizza.

  • To me it is !

    Would you rather have another 9/11, or the government watching over us? Do you think that the government surveillance is a good thing, or a bad thing? Although most say no, I have to go with what I believe, and what I believe is that it is a good thing, because it started the December after 9/11.
    People say that it is a bad thing because it is invading our privacy and that they have no right to do that. But really no one cared before “Edward Snowden” said something about it; Why care if you don’t have anything to hide? Unless you do.
    We think that we can survive without anyone to help us, but truthfully no we can’t we do need it, because without the government spying some of us would be dead. Think of all the murders and terrorist have been caught, without this spying all of those criminals would be still running around. We complain about everything, we complain that the government doesn’t keep us safe, but they really do we just can wake up and realize it because we don’t know it. When we find out about how they are keeping us safe, what are we doing “complaining”.

  • NSA surveillance is constitutional.

    It's not a popular argument to make but you can not find in the constitution any amendments that the NSA has been violating as part of their PRSIM program. They are doing work that is outside of the black and white lines most people try to stand behind which makes it tough.

  • According to USA Patriot Act, Yes

    Congress did themselves no favors by reinstating the USA Patriot Act in the mid-2000s. The NSA's surveillance is constitutional simply because Congress and the president approved the USA Patriot Act in wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The problem today is two-fold. First, the war on terror is over because Osama bin Laden is dead. Second, the NSA's super-spying programs didn't prevent the Boston Marathon bombing. Something needs to be done to rein in the NSA's remarkable powers of espionage, and Congress should hold open hearings regarding this horrible program.

  • No, I do not think that the NSA surveillance is constitutional.

    The NSA surveillance invades our lives through the digital media we use on a daily basis. I believe that this is unconstitutional because it is an invasion of privacy for all of us. No one should be subject to this kind of invasion of privacy, unless they are believed to be doing criminal activity.

  • It's not entirely

    The NSA has a lot of room to look inward in order to protect its people, but that doesn't mean it cannot do any wrong. There have been clear constitutional violations in the recent practices that have come out thanks to everybody's favorite traitor Snowden. I am sympathetic to a point, but we do need SOME privacy.

  • The domestic surveillance program is illegal according to the constitution.

    The constitution states in the fourth amendment 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." This says that the government has no right to go through our private records. The constitution was made for a reason. The Constitution states the domestic surveillance program is illegal because warrants are needed to for each person you search. According to the EFF “The US government, with assistance from major telecommunications carriers including AT&T, has engaged in a massive illegal dragnet surveillance of domestic communications and communications records of millions of ordinary Americans since at least 2001..” This states that the the telecommunications are giving the government our information that we have put on the internet and our phones. This is also illegal to the Constitution and should not be allowed to happen.

  • No, As it violates citizens' right from unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment

    I am a patriotic American trying to get into the service academies, Don't try to scare me into silence with 9/11 rhetoric. I believe as much as the next guy that it should never be repeated, But as a conservative/ libertarian who believes in an original reading of the Constitution, I cannot justify the invasion of our rights to secure our nation. We come together as a nation built around shared ideals, Not blood, And if we are willing to give up those ideals for security, We have no right to call ourselves Americans. The answer is targeted surveillance, Not mass data collection, From both a legal and practical point of view. Cybersecurity and cryptology are ever evolving fields that are the reason we need an NSA, But nothing in their purview or the Constitution they supposedly serve allows for their current role. I know this has pissed off Democrat, Republican, And independent alike, But it needed to be said.

  • The NSA's domestic spying programs should be declared unconstitutional.

    The NSA violates the first amendment because their program targeted specific religions, and assemblies, as well as cause self-censorship. After the events of 9/11, over 1,000 Muslims were targeted due to their religion. In addition, free speech is violated because when people think that they’re being watched, they could censor themselves for fear of getting “disappeared” by the government. Other instances of self censorship include journalists being careful of what they write because they could be thrown in jail, and even just teens making sure they won’t get in trouble. Plus, the NSA violates freedom of the press due to all the self-censorship that journalists are doing. Also, freedom of assembly was violated when the NSA targeted someone due to them going to anti-war meetings.
    So far, the NSA has been useless at stopping terrorism. One “fact” that NSA supporters throw around is that the NSA has stopped 53 terrorist plots. This has been debunked by Senator Leahy during an interview with NSA Director Alexander, “"Would you agree that the 54 cases that keep getting cited by the administration were not all plots, and of the 54, only 13 had some nexus to the U.S.?" Leahy said at the hearing. "Would you agree with that, yes or no?". “‘Yes,’ Alexander replied, without elaborating.” -eff.Org. The NSA did manage to discover where some of the terrorists who were going to attack Paris lived, but couldn’t act on them due to “limitations”. As The Intercept states, “A White House panel concluded in December 2013 that the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ telephone information was “not essential in preventing attacks.” A member of the panel took it one step further, when he told NBC News that there were no examples of the NSA stopping “any terror attacks that might have been really big” using the program.”
    Furthermore, the system that the NSA uses makes a ton of mistakes. According to NBC News, a four year old was stopped from boarding a plane due to him having the same name as someone on the no-fly list. The system used to stop “terrorists” from boarding planes is horrendously antiquated, dating back almost 100 years. In addition, it finds about 85% false matches (the remaining 15 percent tend to be falsely accused), finding people who have the same name as a person on the no fly list, as reported by Huffington Post. Even John DeLong, the NSA’s director of compliance admits that the system makes mistakes, and the May 2012 audit found that over 2,776 of these “mistakes” happened since the last audit. In 2008, an unspecified, but undoubtedly large amount of calls were recorded to and from Washington because of an error that confused the area code 202 with the area code 20, Egypt’s dialing code.

  • Involves invasion of privacy without probable cause.

    The idea that the government should be able to use private communication companies to monitor the activities of its citizens is just crazy. I've heard many say, "I've done nothing wrong--I've got nothing to worry about." Yeah, I'm sure nobody has sent a text or an email that they would not want shown to the public. This is not something the government should ever be allowed to do to a private citizen.

  • The Galapagos islands

    Because i say so a b c d e f g h df sd fg gfg g g g g gg g g g g gg g g gg g g g gg g g g gg g gg g g gg g g g g g gg gg g

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.