Posted on

How the States Provide Fourth Amendment Protection Against the NSA

Blueprint to Stop NSA SpyingNOTE: A version of this article was originally published by Truth-Out

By: Michael Boldin

In her 2004 Brooklyn Law Review article, Ann Althouse offered some powerful suggestions on how to resist “anti-terrorism” powers, such as the Patriot Act, and should be seen as a guide to resisting NSA spying:

The fight against terrorism has raised concerns that the federal government has overreached its legitimate power. Concerns about racial profiling, invasions of privacy, unreasonable searches, and infringement on free speech have fueled a political movement, led by groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC), urging state and local government to adopt resolutions directing their officials not to participate in at least some aspects of the antiterrorism effort.

More on applying this to the NSA in a moment. First, is this legal?

The Doctrine

The ACLU and BORDC resolutions against the Patriot Act (and subsequent ACLU-backed state laws refusing to comply with the 2005 REAL ID Act) were based on a widely accepted legal principle known as the “anticommandeering doctrine.”

This means the federal government cannot require a state to carry out federal acts. The federal government can pass a law and try to enforce it, but your state isn’t required to help them.

The US Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed anticommandeering, relevant court cases being:

* 1842 Prigg: The court held that states weren’t required to enforce federal slavery laws.
* 1992 New York: The court held that Congress couldn’t require states to enact specified waste disposal regulations.
* 1997 Printz: The court held that “the federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.”

Under this doctrine, Althouse noted that “state and local government officials, if they have the nerve, will be able to decline to carry out the anti-terrorism tasks Congress or the president attempts to assign to them.”

Applied to NSA

This can have a significant impact on the NSA’s ability to continue its mass-spying programs.

In 2006, the Baltimore Sun reported that the NSA had maxed out the capacity of the Baltimore-area power grid:

The NSA is already unable to install some costly and sophisticated new equipment. At minimum, the problem could produce disruptions leading to outages and power surges. At worst, it could force a virtual shutdown of the agency.

To get around the physical limitation of the amount of power required to monitor virtually every piece of communication around the globe, the NSA started searching for new locations with independent resources.

A location was chosen in San Antonio because of the independent power grid in Texas. The new Utah Data Center was chosen for access to cheap utilities, primarily water. The water-cooled supercomputers there will require as much as 1.7 million gallons of water per day to function.

That water is being supplied by a political subdivision of the State of Utah. Under the anti-commandeering doctrine, Utah isn’t required to provide that water.

No water = No NSA data center.

The Act

Following the lead of the ACLU and BORDC, model legislation to refuse cooperation with the NSA is now available for introduction in your state. The 4th Amendment Protection Act would ban states like Utah from providing water, or Texas from providing electricity, to facilities engaged in 4th Amendment violations.

But it’s not just Utah and Texas, and it’s not just water or electricity. The formerly-secret “Special Operations Division” (SOD) works closely with the NSA, passing warrantless information along to local law enforcement for use in day-to-day criminal investigations. SOD also instructs and trains law enforcement officers on covering their tracks.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation calls this “intelligence laundering,” which flat-out “bypasses the Constitution.”

In addition, the Act prevents state-run universities from partnering with the NSA. Currently there are 171 so-called “Centers of Academic Excellence” around the country. These schools are major research and recruiting centers for the agency.

Can It Work?

This same process was used effectively by northern abolitionists in resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Today, states like Washington and Colorado are helping end the war on cannabis by refusing to comply with federal prohibition.

We should follow their courageous path against the NSA as well.

Calling your state representative and senator today and encouraging them to introduce and pass the 4th Amendment Protection Act would be a good first step. It’s not going to be easy, but sooner or later, we’re going to have to stop putting up with it.

Rosa Parks may have put it best:

People always say that I didn’t give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn’t true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. I was not old, although some people have an image of me as being old then. I was forty-two. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in.

One thought on “How the States Provide Fourth Amendment Protection Against the NSA

  1. […] 
1. 4th Amendment Protection Act. Our signature model legislation, the 4th Amendment Protection Act, would ban a state from taking actions which provide “material support” or assistance to warrantless federal spying programs. This includes provisioning of resources, and banning the state from using data obtained without warrant in state court.
States should pass this legislation whether they have a physical NSA facility or not, banning the warrantless data in court will have an immediate effect. And, since the NSA rarely publicizes its plans in advance, it’s essential to ensure that their ability to expand with more data center facilities around the country is restricted before they get off the ground. (learn more here)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.