Not only do we have a star chamber, but we can't even be allowed to see what laws they have concluded are Unconstitutional.
Any facade of a functioning democracy, or of a commitment to transparency by this government, is swept away.
It also gets to something Scalia said in oral argument in Clapper v. Amnesty International, namely that we should trust the FISC to address 4th Amendment issues. It makes me wonder if he knew about the decision before the case reached the court.
But without such access to case law determining what is Unconstitutional, how can we know what the law is? Where is due notice in this?
This is just the start. Some of people I suspect who become a cog in the now large system don't get their original patriotism and respect for Constitution sucked out of them. A few will see the ridiculousness of this and do a very risky and dangerous thing and leak the information.
There is a loss of trust that is building up and that will be devastating. Maybe the trust is disappearing because things really did get worse or it is disappearing because the Internet is there and people get more access to alternative channels of communications ( I haven't decided which is which ).
Leaking is the most effective form of protest today. A leaker can do more than 1,000,000 marchers with picket signs can. This is why they're cracking down on it so hard, like they do anything that allows mundane citizens to affect the status quo.
Keep in mind North America does not have a true democracy. It more closely resembles a democratic dictatorship that has many checks in place to ensure our elected Leaders do not abuse their authority. There are other forms of democracy that bring authoritative decision-making much closer to the people.
> The government's bottom line is this: their rules trump the public's statutory rights.
Mind boggling. And this is the same government that's invading sovereign countries, has its agencies undertake black operations to overthrow foreign democratically elected bodies that don't serve its interests [1], all in the name of bringing "democracy" to those regions. Here we have that same government making a fool out of the very people that elected it.
I. This Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over This Motion
II. The Opinion at Issue Is Sealed Pursuant to This Court’s Rules
III. This Court Should Not Vacate the Seal on the Opinion
IV. The Fact That Movant May Be Unsuccessful in the District Court in Compelling the
Department of Justice to Release a Classified, Sealed FISC Opinion Does Not Mean
That Plaintiff Faces a “Catch-22”
The release is really sticky though, this part really caugh my attention:
>"Moreover, even if this Court had
jurisdiction over this Motion, it should deny it, rather than allow another court to determine
whether any portions of its opinion should be released under FOIA. Any such release would be
incomplete and quite possibly misleading to the public about the role of this Court and the issues
discussed in the opinion."
To me, a secret court of justice is equivalent to a secret amendment of the Constitution: there is no way to protect yourself lawfully against it. Funny that it exists in the US ans nobody seems to care.
Not only do we have a star chamber, but we can't even be allowed to see what laws they have concluded are Unconstitutional.
Any facade of a functioning democracy, or of a commitment to transparency by this government, is swept away.
It also gets to something Scalia said in oral argument in Clapper v. Amnesty International, namely that we should trust the FISC to address 4th Amendment issues. It makes me wonder if he knew about the decision before the case reached the court.
But without such access to case law determining what is Unconstitutional, how can we know what the law is? Where is due notice in this?