of the constitution.
We are all excited about these Presidential Orders now, but a couple
of years from now they will seem routine, and nothing to worry about.
At
least, this has been the case with many other laws that have chipped
away at what were once considered constitutional "rights".
For instance, we have the law that the government can seize you property if it deems it was used in illegal drug activity. But, it does not have to prove in court that you were involved, or even that illegal drug activity took place. This law, which was once controversial, is now routinely applied, extending, in effect, the meaning of "due process" to penalization without trial.
Other examples include the gutting of any meaningful requirement for searches, and arbitrary traffic stops, without cause, for alcohol testing. Again, at the time, these were considered controversial and dubious, but now they are widely defended as good and necessary.
And, of course, we have the Patriot Act, also once controversial
but, like earlier laws, gradually slipping into the business-as-usual
category.
Most recently, just last week in fact, we have a law that allows warrantless wiretaps if the communication can reasonably be determined (by the Administration, I suppose) to have an overseas component. However, as the Administration itself has pointed out, with modern communications technology virtually any call could be routed overseas before reaching its destination in the US. Therefore, virtually all calls will fall within this rule, even domestic-domestic ones. Also, the law no longer requires any connection to terrorism. Presto! No need to get warrants for any wiretap for any purpose! It seems shocking now--actually, it does not; there has been virtually no outcry over this. (Remember, you first read this penetrating analysis here!)
Thus does "due process" get defined down, indeed, defined away.
And, remember, Bush got elected, twice, and the elimination of wiretap warrants was a bipartisan effort.
