The Fourth Amendment and Warrantless Wiretaps

"As a means of espionage, writs of assistance and general warrants are but puny instruments of tyranny and oppression when compared with wire tapping."
Justice Louis Brandeis, Olmstead v.United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).

Justice Louis Brandeis spoke for most Kentuckians when he wrote Olmstead v. United States for the United States Supreme Court in 1928. His observations are still true today.
We had the Bush-Cheney-Hal Rogers Republican Administration engaged in illegal and Unconstitutional warrantless telephone wiretapping. Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House of Representatives for the Kentucky Fifth District, and I will help put an end to warrantless telephone wiretapping.
According to a report issued by the Administration Office of the United States Courts, state and federal courts authorized 1,710 interceptions of wire, oral and electronic communications in 2004, an increase of 19 percent over intercepts approved in 2003 and the greatest number ever authorized in a single year. Federal officials requested 730 intercept applications in 2004, a 26 percent increase over the number requested in 2003. No wiretap applications were denied last year.
Concerning the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, of the 1,758 applications for Federal wiretaps made in 2004, no wiretap applications were denied.
So why does the Bush-Cheney-Hal Rogers team insist that we must have warrantless wiretapping? Isn't it enough that the Federal judges that decide on the wiretap applications are all appointed by the President? Isn't it enough that, in 2004, no wiretap applications were denied? Isn't it enough that the President's men can go ahead and install the wiretap, and then apply for a wiretap warrant later? The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that no American Citizen will be subject to unreasonable search and seizure. Warrantless wiretaps are unreasonable search and seizure. Is is necessary to trash the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution in order to win the "War on Terror"? As Daniel Webster of Massachusetts noted over a hundred years ago, trashing part of the United States Constitution trashes all of it. Is it necessary to trash the United States Constitution in order to win the "War on Terror"? United States Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis from Kentucky explained and established the precedent of Court law limiting the use of telephone wiretapping in Olmstead. Is it necessary to trash the precedent of Court-explained Constitutional law explained by Kentucky's own United States Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis limiting the use of telephone wiretapping in Olmstead, in order to win the "War on Terror"? If your answer is "No" then, elect Kenneth Stepp to the United States House of Representatives for the Kentucky Fifth District and I will help end warrantless wiretaps.