September 14, 2013
Jason Cannon
Unit: Federalism (expanding power of federal gov, constitution)
Synopsis:
A committee was formed by President Obama to look into the NSA and determine if its acts are constitutional and if it is helping the gov and not hurting the people. This committee has received lots of criticism because of the members assigned to it and because of its inability to potentially do anything. President Obama apparently said that the committee would be made up of outside sources, but four of the five members of the committee have worked in the government and/or intelligence related jobs.
Detailed analysis/comments:
As I read the fact that this committee was going to try to determine the constitutionality of the NSA's acts, I wondered how they, or anyone could do that. Many issues today could never have been projected 200 + years ago when the constitution was written, and so luckily the constitution was left somewhat open in terms of the national governments power by the "necessary and proper" clause. But this also results in much controversy regarding what is "necessary" for congress to carry out its powers and what is "proper" in carrying out those powers. I think that this uncertainty favors the national government because they can claim that anything they are doing is "necessary and proper." By saying this I do not mean that the national government should not have powers that are not specifically stated in the constitution. I recognize that things have changed drastically and the national gov needs to do several things through the "necessary and proper" clause. But I do think that the constitutionality of something is very difficult to determine based on how much things have changed and the many different interpretations of the constitution. How far should the government be able to go to protect the country? Are they violating individual rights by invading their cell phone/internet privacy? These questions are very difficult to answer with the constitution.
The white house released a written statement on this committee which
said, "The review group will assess whether, in light of advancements in
communications technologies, the United States employs its technical
collection capabilities in a manner that optimally protects our national
security and advances our foreign policy while appropriately accounting
for other policy considerations, such as the risk of unauthorized
disclosure and our need to maintain the public trust." The words "other policy considerations" make it seem that it is not a matter of constitutionality, but a much lighter matter. When talking about the committee, Steven Aftergood said, "Basically, they're saying, 'Well how can we optimize surveillance while taking privacy in to account?'". The written statement by this White House makes me want to agree with this guy.
In the article it talked about many people being critical of the President's appointed committee, especially because he said that they would be outside sources. Many think that they will find nothing wrong with the actions of the NSA. I agree with their criticism and think that they make a great point. Those who have done work associated with the government's intelligence agencies are probably not those who would find something wrong with the NSA. It might make them look bad. The article pointed out, though, that the committee could surprise everyone and prove the criticism wrong. It also said that even if the committee does find something wrong with the NSA actions it would not be able to do anything. I think that the committee itself couldn't do anything, but by stating what they thought they could influence the president's decisions and the decision's of congress.
I don't have a solution to figuring out if what the NSA is doing is constitutional (and I don't know if there is a great solution), but I don't think that the answer lies in this specific five person committee.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/07/201463/doubts-raised-about-independence.html#.UjUvD39qmRN
No comments:
Post a Comment