If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Ron Branson, ©2013, National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief

The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights protect citizens’ right to privacy. Recently, a federal judge ruled that the NSA spying is unconstitutional, while another ruled that it is permissible in light of the passage of the Patriot Act following the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01

(Dec. 29, 2013) — The U.S. Constitution claims to be the supreme law of the land, and all officials thereunder shall swear by an Oath to uphold and defend it as such.  “This Constitution … shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several states legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, of both the United States and the several states, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”   U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Sec. 2 & 3.

The U.S. Constitution leaves no room for guesswork! Nonetheless, we are now faced with two conflicting federal judges on the same subject, which is the constitutionality of the NSA seizing personal and private information on all Americans.

Federal Judge William Pauley, in countering the findings of unconstitutionality of the prior federal judge, claims that Congress, through its passage of the Patriot Act, known as 911, overturns the prior federal judge’s ruling of unconstitutionality. It therefore follows that Federal Judge Pauley believes that the government’s seizure of information without Probable Cause, as required by the Fourth Amendment, is overcome by Congress’s Patriot Act. In order to reach the answer to this question, we must first determine whether Congress had the power under the Constitution to pass the Patriot Act, of which Judge Pauley relies upon in voiding the Fourth Amendment.

Hence, I have entitled this as “The U.S. Constitution vs. The Federal Judiciary.” This is not really an argument of federal judge vs. federal judge, as no matter how you slice it, we have to deal with the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the law, and all government must swear by Oath to uphold and defend it as the supreme law of the land.

Thus, the only conclusion we can arrive at on this NSA issue is that Judge Pauley believes his ruling based upon his own findings that the Patriot Act overturns a finding of unconstitutionality is that Acts of Congress are greater than the Constitution which originally created Congress and granted it its limited powers. Such twisted argument is as if one argued that they are their own grandfather, and fathered their father! Federal Judge Pauley’s ruling upholding the NSA is void on it face because it is based upon a finding that Congress overruled the Constitution.

He should be tried for treason. But who can try him for treason but those to whom he relies for making such finding?  I have little doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court will find that the Constitution loses, and everyone’s privacy can be looted without our permission by the government without Probable Cause because it is in the national interest, and done to “keep us safe.” Let us not forget the words of Benjamin Franklin, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

*   *   *


Judge cites 9/11 in overturning NSA ruling

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. “Treason never prospers – what’s the reason? If it prospers, none dare call it treason.” This was on the first page of Alvin Toffler’s book FUTURE SHOCK. It parallels Orwell’s 1984, and unfortunately also parallels this administration we have today.