Paul: Let SCOTUS Rule On NSA Constitutionality


Most people in the United States have a hard time believing that the National Security Agency reforms President Barack Obama announced earlier in the month or any number of Congressional inquiries will do anything to protect Americans’ privacy from government spies. So Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is proposing that the government system of checks and balances be used as it is designed, to allow for a Supreme Court review of the NSA’s tactics.

“I think the constitutionality of these programs needs to be questioned, and there needs to be a Supreme Court decision that looks at whether what they are doing is constitutional or not,” Paul said Sunday on FOX News.

Paul was speaking on the news network following The Washington Post’s publishing of a new Edward Snowden sourced report that detailed how the NSA breaks privacy rules and oversteps its legal authority thousands of times per year.

Paul contends that allowing NSA to operate in a manner that is totally unConstitutional evidences Obama’s lack of understanding of government checks and balances.

“The checks and balances are supposed to come from independent branches of government,” Paul said. “So he thinks that if gets some lawyers together from the NSA, and they do a powerpoint presentation and tell him everything’s ok, that the NSA can police itself.”

Furthermore, Paul said, the President and Congress cannot be trusted to fix the problem as long as they are deliberately misleading the public about the scope of the NSA programs.

“They chose not to report the program, period,” Paul said. “They said they weren’t looking at any American data or any phone calls, and it turns out they’re looking at billions of phone calls every day.”

Paul said that the only way to make sure the NSA doesn’t abuse its surveillance power is for a discussion led by people who are more skeptical of the NSA than the intelligence insiders currently acting as placebo watchdogs to take place before an open court. The Senator added that he thinks the Supreme Court would be the best option.

Personal Liberty

Sam Rolley

Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After covering community news and politics, Rolley took a position at Personal Liberty Media Group where could better hone his focus on his true passions: national politics and liberty issues. In his daily columns and reports, Rolley works to help readers understand which lies are perpetuated by the mainstream media and to stay on top of issues ignored by more conventional media outlets.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • Paul

    Sounds like Mr. Paul is passing the buck. SCOTUS found Obamacare constitutional. Why would you expect anything different on their ruling of NSA activities?

    • antiliberal00

      You are most correct. Ultimately the final say on constitutionally is from “We the people”, not SCOTUS.
      Over the last 50 years of so, SCOTUS has been rubber stamping whatever the government wanted to do. At least half of SCOTUS should be impeached along with %95 of congress and the entire executive branch. NONE of these people have upheld their oath of office.

    • antiliberal00

      Government can’t work as it was designed as the progressives have managed to destroy the checks and balances over the last 100 years. The 17th amendment gutted the entire function of the senate.
      SCOTUS should ONLY include people that will uphold our founder’s design, not distort it with political parties and philosophies. In other words, no liberals or progressives allowed from EITHER party.

    • vicki

      Just out of curiosity, where in the Constitution is SCOTUS delegated the power to decide what is constitutional?

      If it were really the job of SCOTUS then it could not refuse cert. It could not refuse to hear cases)

  • red neck

    If the result of the “SCOTUS” decision “ruling” of the NSA spying is anything like the “ruling” of obama-care than the citizens of this country must take back the constitution by ANY means necessary even if that includes bloodshed!!!!

    • chris

      It may come to that before this ends

  • dan

    SCOTUS,what a joke…they don’t even consider the Constitution until they consult their precedent rulings and then their political penumbras.

  • Randall Woodman

    I would not put much trust in SCOTUS to rule against the government. After all, they upheld Obamacare.

  • Alan

    Obama does’nt have a lack of understanding of checks and balances, he chooses to ignore them because they are inconvienient to the supreme ruler.

  • madmax

    A convention of the states is what WE THE PEOPLE need and put it to a vote by WE THE PEOPLE such as term limits on career politicans that are corrupt! Such as obama care that was decided in a court room by men that pertains to every person in this nation WE THE PEOPLE should of voted on this issue! 3/5 majorityof a states convention by WE THE PEOPLE super ceeds any federal bull [expletive deleted] they force up on this nation!!! WE THE PEOPLE MUST ACT QUICKLY !!! Before this nation is run into insolvency by the crooked banker thieves that obamma is there puppet BOY!!!!! LOOK AROUND is this the change you thought mr puppet boy was talking about!!! He said I will cut the debt in half my first term and manymany more promises he lied about such as the nsa I will put a stop to the Iillegal nsa YEA RIGHT MR PUPPET BOY!! OBAMMA IS A LIER TRUE BLUE THROUGH AND THROUGH

    • Vis Fac

      We the peoples vote doesn’t count as is evidenced by the PRC’s Over whelming passage of the proposition 8 ballot measure banning gay marriage. We the people’s vote was nullified by a law suit. As special interests always supersede popular vote.

      The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing–Edmund Burke

      A republic is defined as a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president…

      Our republic no longer exists because we have an omnipotent self centered clown in the Oval office who is as unconstitutional as anyone can be. Anyone thinking we still live in a republic had best take notice of what OUR elected officials are doing WITHOUT OUR consent. Our republic no longer exists because the people no longer have power!

      Benjamin Franklin once said … A democracy can be best described as two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”

      Our Republic that allows for a well armed sheep to contest the vote!”
      shall soon be a fond memory for our rubber stamp liberally controlled congress is eagerly waiting to disarm us.

      Libertas inaestimabilis res est


    • vicki

      A convention of the states would allow a complete rewrite of the contract we call the Constitution. Now given the maturity and wisdom shown by voters and politicians recently, just why do you think they will be able to improve on a design crafted by real patriots and statesmen?

  • TML

    The doctrine of Judicial Review is horse crap, it wasn’t meant as part of the checks and balances; it’s just been widely accepted after the Supreme Court gave itself such final authority on the Constitution. Someone would need a legitimate case to be heard on the exact issue of spying – such as Snowden – in order to go to the Supreme Court, rather than bringing it to the Court just to simply give their ‘ok’ on a particular practice or not.

  • vicki

    We hardly need to wait for SCOTUS to rule on the NSA spying on Americans. It is right there in plain English

    “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.”

    Of course in a morally-relativistic world where the meaning of “is” is questioned how can even SCOTUS know.

  • Bob in Florida

    Well!! This certainly turned into a well-deserved flogging of SCOTUS!

    I have to agree with those who doubt the wisdom of letting the current Court decide whether this administration is acting unconstitutionally, or not.

    I also fall into the camp of those who believe it is not the Constitutionally-mandated purview of the Supreme Court to determine the Constitutionality of such a question.

    Sooo, where does that leave us?
    If SCOTUS is not our vehicle to use; and
    One chamber of the Legislative Branch (the Senate) is firmly in the pocket of the Executive Branch;
    We have only one entity left – we must use the House of Representatives (who are the rightful entity to represent, We The People) to enact, or stop the enactment of, legislation and/or regulations that we want, or do not want, respectively.

    Sen. Paul is certainly one of very few that we can depend on; unfortunately, he is not in the chamber we need to act in our behalf. That is not to say he is not an important ally; but we have to identify, and back the action of, Representatives that will do what they swore to do when they took their oath of office.

    These can be identified on a national level (by whom?) but it will depend on a concerted action of people within their own districts (the people who can vote them in, or out, of office) to bring the pressure to bear and monitor their response. Does an organization already exist that can spearhead and coordinate this effort?

  • Guest

    I would not hold my breath waiting for the Supreme Court to rule in favour of the Constitution and Bill Of Rights. They seem to be increasingly left-wing and liberal. It makes me wonder if any of the nine supreme court justices ever bothered to read those two important documents? I would not be too surprised if these judges ruled in favour of NSA spying. After all, John & Jane Q. American, you have nothing to hide, right? The fact that Americans are willing to be groped and sexually assaulted at the airport, a little NSA spying is not as bad. After all, at least with the NSA spying you can keep your pants on.