24th Annual Bill of Rights
Art and Essay Contest, 2007-2008

TOPIC:  WARRANTLESS WIRETAPS:
              Does Government access to telephone calls and emails
              without a warrant violate the Constitution?

1st Prize, Middle School
by E.L., an 8th-grade Pacific Grove Middle School student

Warrantless Wiretaps

Ever since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the government has hade every effort to stop terrorists in order to prevent future attacks. The Use of Military Service Act stated that the President, a well as many other members of the Executive Branch, could do whatever they felt was necessary to keep our country safe. The government's solution was warrantless wiretapping. However, many people believe that wiretapping without a warrant violates our basic Constitutional rights. What rights are being taken away? If the government continues to take away our individual right, where will it stop? Our Constitutional rights should not be sacrificed for a frustrated and desperate government.

The California Constitution directly states, "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among those are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursing and obtaining safety, happiness, and Privacy." Though it is not stated directly in the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court has held privacy to be one of our basic rights. Some people may argue that privacy is a small price to pay for our safety. Although absolute safety is important, the right to live a private, personal life is too. If the government listens to our personal telephone calls and reads private emails, or just the slight possibility that they are listening, completely compromises our freedom of speech.

By wiretapping without a warrant, the Executive Brand has too much power, for they are not receiving the warrant from the Judicial Branch. The Constitution of the United States demands that each branch of government (Legislative, Judicial, and Executive) have equal power, known as checks and balances. Because "absolute power corrupts absolutely", the United States of America did not, and still does not want, one branch to have too much power, but that would be like having a king (which is essentially broke away from when we became separate from England). The Judicial Branch must issue a warrant to the Executive Branch in order for the search to be legal. If members of the Executive Branch take action without a warrant, the powers are thrown off balance.

The First Amendment states that "...Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...". Just the small possibility that government officials are listening to or reading what every day citizens have to say may cause them to hold back and not say what is really on their minds. Others may argue that the government does not even care about what the people are saying; they are simply searching for terrorists. However, it is unconstitutional to cause people to restrain their speech in any way. By making warrantless wiretapping okay, freedom of speech is compromised, as well as America's Constitution.

The Constitution also states, in the Fourteenth Amendment, "No State shall...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was created by the National Security Agency in 1978, allowing both physical and electronic surveillance between foreign powers. By spying on non-domestic calls and emails, it is not giving each and every American citizen "equal protection". People immigrated to the United States from numerous countries, so why punish them (by listening to and reading their conversations) for contacting friends or family around the world?

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says, "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 seized." This means that warrantless wiretapping is undoubtedly unconstitutional. For wiretapping every home in America, there is no probable cause. Everybody is not a terrorist, so why punish everyone by listening to their private conversations. In addition, without a warrant from a judge, the evidence found through the wiretaps cannot be legally used in court, for it was not collected in the proper way.

September 11, 2001, left our country in a state of fear and anxiety. The people looked to the government for protection and prevention of future attacks. However, nobody could have guessed that the government's solution would violate the American Constitution in so many ways. No checks and balances are in play if the Executive Branch has power over the other branches. Our right to freedom of speech and equal protection are being erased right before our eyes. Warrantless wiretapping clearly violates the United States Constitution, so why should our government be allowed to use it? Ignoring our Constitutional rights completely comprises our democracy, and isn't democracy what we pretend to be fighting to protect.