What is the 4th Amendment ? (HR6304 UPDATE)

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.


On July 9, 2008, 69 members of the U.S. Senate voted to abolish the 4th amendment and protect the President of the United States and his friends from illegal activities perpetrated upon the people of the United States in direct violation of the United States Constitution.

28 Senators voted NO. This is what some of them had to say about HR 6304.

WHY THE CONTROVERSY ?
from Wikipedia

The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy concerns surveillance of persons within the United States incident to the collection of foreign intelligence by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the war on terror. Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the "terrorist surveillance program",[1] the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor, without warrants, phone calls, e-mails, Internet activity, and text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S. The exact scope of the program is not known, but the NSA is or was provided total, unsupervised access to all fiber-optic communications going between some of the nation's major telecommunication companies' major interconnect locations, including phone conversations, email, web browsing, and corporate "private network" traffic. Shortly before Congress passed a new law in August of 2007 that legalized warrantless surveillance, the Protect America Act of 2007, critics stated that such "domestic" intercepts required FISC authorization under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,[2]. The Bush administration maintains that the authorized intercepts are not domestic but rather "foreign intelligence" integral to the conduct of war and that the warrant requirements of FISA were implicitly superseded by the subsequent passage of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF).[3]

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales confirmed the existence of the program, first reported in a December 16, 2005 article in The New York Times[4][5]. The Times had posted the exclusive story on their website the night before, after learning that the Bush administration was considering seeking a Pentagon Papers-style court injunction to block its publication.[6] Gonzales stated that the program authorizes warrantless intercepts where the government "has a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda." and that one party to the conversation is "outside of the United States".[7] The revelation raised immediate concern among elected officials, civil right activists, legal scholars and the public at large about the legality and constitutionality of the program and the potential for abuse. Since then, the controversy[8] has expanded to include the press's role in exposing a classified program, the role and responsibility of Congress in its executive oversight function and the scope and extent of Presidential powers under Article II of the Constitution.

Washington your fired website

Daniel Ellsberg"Pentagon Papers" on the FISA bill

HISTORY OF 4TH AMENDMENT CHALLENGES

What does it all mean to me ?

If the NSA under the authority of the President even suspects that you(American citizen) has any association with any person who may have any association with any person who may be considered a national security threat, then you can(will) be subject to a FISA warrant to surveillance via the telecommuniction companies(phone internet,text)