One small step for...oh you get the picture.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy, as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

It's about time someone took a stand and said "NO MORE" to the rapid erosion of civil liberties in America. At the rate it was changing I thought the country would resemble a police state within the next year. Warrantless wiretapping belongs in spy novels and the Communism Era. Actually it shouldn't even have been there then, it just was.

"We're going to do everything we can do in the courts to allow this program to continue," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales maintained that the program is legal and useful.

It's legal? I think he has a different U.S. Constitution than the rest of us.

Mine says this:

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.

I would say unwarranted listening would go directly against that. It's the Fourth Amendment. Some people say that it only applies to physical arrest or seizure of property. But is not a private conversation between yourself and someone else or your email your property? I should think so.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It also tangentially slaps that one in the face. That's the First Amendment. Our forefathers thought that one so necessary that it was ratified in 1791.

That's over 200 years ago people. It's pretty damn important.

The Bush Administration had this to say
The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

Ummm..what?! It's in the authority of the president, but it's a state secret? Isn't the president's authority set forth in the constitution, I mean it has a whole Article in there.

Article II, Section 2 to be exact. But it talks about being in charge of the military and writing treaties and... Wait a second. Section 3 is even more interesting.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;

"I was informing congress of my actions" -G.W.Bush

"The President never informed us of these actions," -Congress

Well so much for that one I suppose. Maybe he didn't judge it necessary and expedient that he inform them of the illegal wiretapping and such.

This part is my favorite:
he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed

Oh shall he? If that were the case then we wouldn't be having this discussion now would we?

*Citations taken from Yahoo news article here