..for there to be a nice tied-up package resolution.

For just one: it raises the issue of the "reserved powers" clause and, basic schisms about nothing less than "how one views" the US Constitution itself!

Is it: some set-in-concrete list of Authorized / Not Authorized behavior? If it isn't explicitly permitted - it is implicitly denied? Anything not prohibited is compulsory?

Or is it a still-Living prescription for ever-improving our understanding of the 'Rights' implicit - and in ever-altering context? Rights unspecified (for it being impossible to anticipate the future) - necessarily ephemeral ideas which peripherally involve facts.. but mainly are about, our emotional response to collections of those: the environment we have VS what we'd prefer to have (?)

So IMhO - that's why this surveillance issue won't die with YAN cliche in apposition. It raises too many Big ideas to go quietly. It is only cut&dried for the already cut&dried.


Ashton