Digital-age privacy advocates should be thrilled with President Trump's nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court precisely because he is a superb originalist. Gorsuch won't disappoint law-and-order types, either. Unlike ideologues who focus on judicial outcomes, Gorsuch's application of originalism will satisfy the needs of law, order, and liberty.
Once the power to track someone is granted to the Department of Justice the criteria for tracking will surely expand. We urge CHQ readers to call Congress (the Capitol Switchboard is 1-866-220-0044) to tell your Representative to oppose H.R. 4919 when it comes up under suspension later today.
Unilaterally issued administrative warrants like the ones used in the state climate speech probes are institutional violations of, and impossible to reconcile with, the Fourth Amendment. Until Congress and state legislatures act to eliminate their use, executive branch officials will continue to employ them to infringe on the right of political, scientific, and other dissent.
Government violations of the Constitution happen every day across the country. Such conduct is properly called “illegal.” Through court opinions and legislative acts, these illegal government acts have supplanted the supreme law over government, and have helped make government America’s biggest lawbreaker.
It seems that some liberal politicians believe it is acceptable to infringe on Second Amendment rights without due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, while other liberal politicians love to infringe on First Amendment rights by evading the Fourth Amendment, which was supposed to protect papers and effects from unreasonable searches.
Attacking donor privacy by insinuating it has a negative influence on politics completely ignores its positive influence. It’s not just the right of liberals to band together through associations to criticize Republicans, or conservatives associating to criticize Democrats; donor privacy also protects liberals criticizing Democrats, and conservatives criticizing Republicans. Donor privacy also helps protect criticism of the IRS, the National Security Agency, Wall Street and other powerful institutions.
Conservative leaders are fighting serious violations and evasions of the Internal Revenue Code by California Attorney General Kamala Harris and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. Harris and Schneiderman have engaged in illegal disclosures of confidential donor names and addresses that a federal judge called a "pervasive, recurring pattern of uncontained Schedule B disclosures...".
Just as the Federalist Society and various conservative public interest law firms sprang up during the past 30 years in response to abuses of constitutional rights by the left, conservative litigators will find a niche suing and exposing state attorneys general for their police-state tactics. The market demands it, and justice requires it.
The difficulty is that conclusions about climate change, on either side of the question, are often difficult to distinguish from political opinion. Although the truth about the climate may lie in complex empirical data, such data is always open to dispute, and the climate has become a highly contested political controversy. The attorney general’s subpoena therefore looks disturbingly like harassment for dissenting scientific and political opinion.
Congress’ proposed “Email Privacy Act” lets federal agencies continue subpoenaing citizens’ emails, bank account numbers and phone call records without first demonstrating probable cause to a judge and getting court approval for a warrant.
Nobody knows how many administrative subpoenas are issued by government agencies. Administrative subpoenas are warrants for records such as private “papers” and emails. They are issued unilaterally by government bureaucrats, and are impossible to reconcile with the Fourth Amendment’s requirements of “oath and affirmation” of “probable cause” before neutral judges.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission officials recently used a warrant-less subpoena on a Texas-based grocery chain that fired an employee who failed a post-maternity leave physical fitness test, demanding the home addresses and Social Security numbers of every company employee.
When government wants emails from those on the left without a warrant from a judge, that’s a violation of privacy protected by the 4th Amendment. When government wants emails from someone who disagrees with positions of the left, well, it’s irresponsible to protect privacy. Get it?
Our collegue Mark J. Fitzgibbons offers Rep. Ted Poe of Texas some friendly conservative cross-examination about Poe's October 6 op/ed at Fox News (“Your emails, photos and more deserve Fourth Amendment protections, too”) about H.R. 699, the so-called Email Privacy Act, and reforms to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
Charity solicitation regulators have been defeated four times since 1980 in the Supreme Court of the United States but — a bit like Freddie Krueger — they keep coming back.
The administrative subpoena is a tool that lawyers and former government officials say federal agencies are increasingly turning to as a way to force people and companies to turn over personal records and other documents. The catch: it doesn’t require the prior approval of a judge.
This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the ECPA Amendments Act (S. 356), that chamber’s version the Email Privacy Act (H.R. 699) over in the House. These bipartisan bills are opposed by several federal agencies, indicating they do something right, and are supported by electronic privacy groups and several high-profile conservative organizations. What’s left out of the marketing of these bills is the continued grotesque violations of the Fourth Amendment, as described in a letter Fitzgibbons submitted to the committee.
A legal conflict is intensifying between federal officials and civil liberties advocates defending Americans’ medical privacy rights in a case that points to the increasingly frequent use by bureaucrats of judge-less, warrant-less subpoenas. As things stand now, the Drug Enforcement Administration is winning and privacy rights are losing.
Soon, everything will be considered within the reach of our soft-police state government in violation of the Fourth Amendment unless administrative subpoenas are outlawed, as they should have been nearly 70 years ago says our colleague constitutional lawyer Mark J. Fitzgibbons in his latest piece on the Fourth Amendment for The American Thinker.
The Supreme Court's decision on same-sex "marriage" will now pit the power and resources of the federal, state and even local governments against individuals, churches, businesses, nonprofit organizations, colleges, home schoolers, and all legally recognized -- and regulated -- human endeavors that communicate and act in ways consistent with the religious and ancient tenet that marriage is exclusively between one man and one woman.