What telephone pole FBI spy cameras say about the “living document”

In recent news, new phenomena involving telephone pole FBI spy cameras are receiving some ludicrous arguments from the feds.

They argue that information about FBI cameras cannot be disclosed, because then people would know about them.

The Patriot Act switcharoo already revealed the intent behind 9/11, leading to the unconstitutional ruling of NSA spying. And now this further excess of security is supposed to be acceptable?

Surveillance didn’t stop a self-admitted ISIS gunman from shooting down 50 people in a nightclub.

And even if it did, nobody in their hearts and guts really wants the government spying on them all the time. That’s why nobody liked 1984. That’s why it was such a chilling book.

As written in ArsTechnica magazine:

Winn, meanwhile, wrote to Judge Jones that the location information about the disguised surveillance cams should be withheld because the public might think they are an “invasion of privacy.

User sondjata then left the clever comment:

I’m trying to figure out what part of:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

is unclear.

The passage he quotes is the Fourth Amendment, directly from the Constitution. It seems to speak very clearly for itself, and yet the lying feds, such as Obama, suggest that this ancient document is in fact a “living document.”

The “living document” argument would suggest that, since the Constitution was written in a different time, that we can re-interpret it.

“We are living in different times now,” the government would say. As if the extent of violence or terrorism warrants a re-interpretation of the Constitution.

What this argument covers up is the fact that the Constitution was written the way it was FOR THIS EXACT REASON.

The authors KNEW and FORESAW government overreach, and so they built the Constitution to ensure that it would stand the test of time.

Now the fact that it’s an old document is being used against it? That’s the biggest irony I’ve ever seen.

The Constitution is old, and rightfully so. It was very carefully written when it was constructed by wise men who knew what could happen in the future, and tried to warn against it.

The Constitution does not need to be updated. It is NOT a living document, in that it grows with the times.

The intent of the author changes the nature of the work, however we might choose to interpret it. And in this case, intent is not only important, it is the MOST IMPORTANT THING about the Constitution because that is how the judges and courts are supposed to (and used to) make their rules based on it–by basing it on the intent of the document, and what presents “justice.”

History repeats itself, and the founding fathers purposefully set down a lasting foundation with proper checks and balances to ensure democracy would continue….

But when the government itself violates its own laws, then there is only one check left.

And it is not in writing.