Would a bill to explicitly define the 4th to include data storage have sufficient force of law? Or would that violate separation of powers and get thrown out by SCOTUS?

At any rate, given the tepid reaction of Congress, I don't see an amendment happening anytime soon. Hell, at this point the ideological tribalism is so bad, I'm not sure they could agree on an amendment outlawing the kicking of puppies.

Once you change the constitution it can't be thrown out be the SCOTUS by definition. They can interpret constitutional law or declare law unconstitutional, they can't blatantly ignore the constitution (well, in theory...).

In short, the facility to reverse supreme court decisions is a constitutional amendment.

lukifer is asking about whether a normal bill (law) would be sufficient, as opposed to yuhong's suggestions of a constitutional amendment.

Congress can't change the scope of Constitutional rights, either to expand or narrow them. They could, however, simply outlaw the practice.

This all happened once before, with the Church Commission, and we were able to step back from the brink, using statutory rather than Constitutional fixes. Today, it seems we lack the political will to do so again.

I am thinking about defining foreign spying powers of the government.

> Would a bill to explicitly define the 4th to include data storage have sufficient force of law?

I don't think it would be a separation of powers problem in and of itself, but by virtue of separation of powers the judiciary wouldn't be bound to follow that interpretation.

Even the repealing of Citizens United as a Constitutional Amendment is having hard enough traction. With such low trust level in Congress (which means Congress is the most anti-citizens as ever), this is not a proper environment for introducing a Constitutional Amendment, anyway. Can you imagine what this "rogue" Congress would try to introduce in it (that's if they even accept to pass it).

Also, it's not needed. Why the hell can't we get the same type of strict restrictions for e-mail and online chat as for snail mail? Why?!

Those privacy laws for mail were not made based on the medium - paper - they were based on the principle of private communications. So why doesn't that apply to e-mail, too? The government is quick to say that copyright infringement online is just like stealing a car. So why isn't infringing on e-mail privacy just like infringing on snail mail privacy? And why doesn't e-mail get the same laws protecting it? That's what people need to ask their own representatives in Congress.

That's because citizens united was actually a good ruling. People don't lose rights just by forming groups.

Citizens united may have been a good ruling, but absent further reform in political campaigning, we'll continue to see bad results.

  >People don't lose rights just by forming groups.

In principle maybe, but, if only it were true. Try telling that to the many people arrested for political protesting, especially those arrested merely for being in proximity of a protest.

Then there is always the group of people who "choose" to travel by air.

I'm slightly confused by your response. It seem you agree with me that people shouldn't lose rights by being in a group. You cite 2 examples:

   In principle maybe, but, if only it were true. Try telling that to the many people arrested for political protesting, especially those arrested merely for being in proximity of a protest.
   Then there is always the group of people who "choose" to travel by air.

So we're in agreement about people and their rights. I guess the only part I don't get is the "In principle maybe, but, if only it were true. Try telling that to the many people arrested for political protesting, especially those arrested merely for being in proximity of a protest. Then there is always the group of people who "choose" to travel by air." Are you advocating for limiting the rights of groups to speak/assemble/spend & raise money? Or are you pointing out that the current system isn't great? I'll agree the latter - in my opinion the problem is that there is a concentration of power and massive budget - when there's that few people controlling that much money then the incentives will be to try and direct as much of the money towards your special interest as possible. Restricting groups is treating the symptom, not the cause.

It's silly to call this Congress a "rogue" Congress because of its low approval ratings. Nationwide, people still strongly approve of their elected representatives. They just hate the ones all the other people chose.

I wonder when the last Congress was that didn't have low approval ratings, in fact.

The 9/11 Congress: http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupS.... The one that passed the PATRIOT ACT and the AUMF.

Math is stronger than courts. If communications and storage are routinely encrypted, governments will have to focus on the truly high-value cases where planting and monitoring a bug is worthwhile.

Math and courts are strong in slightly different domains, not always overlapping. A two-pronged approach is necessary.