Originally I was going to use privacy as my first point to argue as my strongest point. However, after much review of my articles, I have found that there is a lot more information on the unconstitutional part of this arguement. Also, the amendements, includying four and five, play a big role in this arguement.
The first idea is that the government will be receiving too much power and may ultimately abuse this privledge they have. Many laws regarding wiretapping are very vague and can easily be twisted to fit the necessities of the person. The idea of a warrant is not a strict law for wiretapping based on the fact that telephone/internet tapping was not a issue when the constitution was written. Therefore, there was no part about telephone/internet tapping. The general public is afraid that the government will be become the "Big Brother" and abuse their privledge.
The fourth amendment is based on warrants being needed to question a person. A specific place is needed to grant a warrant. Also, it needs to be given by a judge. With the wiretapping no specific location is needed and it does not have to be administered by a judge. It is a secretive process that is not constitutional.
Also, it is arguable that the fifth amendment is being violated, by not giving people the right of due process of law. Also they are not receiving a case in an open court.
1 comment:
I completely understand and agree with your point of view and why you would use as your strongest point violation of the amendments. It is a much more convincing point to make because it conflicts with one's personal rights and the law. As a result, using this as your strongest subtopic instead of privacy will be more effective in your actual paper.
p.s. I'm sorry that I haven't been able to comment you. It didnt work for some reason and it only works after hitting 'Publish' like 200 times. Sorry again, hope you understand! :)
Post a Comment