Decius wrote:
Mike the Usurper wrote:
Tom? That's wiretaps, not physical searches. We're talking about apples and oranges. Physical searches require a warrant, period.
This is an apples to apples comparison. The founders did not imagine wiretaps when they wrote the Constitution. The 4th amendment that prevents warrantless wiretaps is the same 4th amendment that prevents warrantless searches. If the 4th amendment does not apply to a particular set of circumstances, it doesn't apply, regardless of the method of search. Whereas the courts have decided that the 4th amendment does not prevent warrantless wiretaps in particular circumstances, the courts allow warrantless searches in the same circumstances.
Note:
First, the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.
JAMIE S. GORELICK - DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, BEFORE THE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
And that's the argument they're making. That's not anything any court has signed off on. The courts do not view wiretaps and searches the same. Wiretaps can be done off premises but are considered an invasion because they are in an area that is reasonably considered private. That is not that case with physical searches.
Your quote from Gorelick is the White House memo that flies directly in the face of over 200 years of US history.
