Let's say for the sake of argument that everything you listed is true, which, it's clearly not.
Does it matter to you at all that this is UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
Does the founding charter of our nation mean absolutely nothing to you?
Now, an argument in terms of civil liberties or the danger of concentrating too much power in too few hands or possible abuses of the technology or invasion of privacy would have been completely reasonable, and such arguments have been well made in other posts. But yours by itself is completely empty.
The constitution is great, but it's hardly the perfect authority on everything and shouldn't be revered as such.
Arguing against a proposed amendment on the grounds that the proposed change allows something currently prohibited would be silly, obviously, but that's not what anyone is doing I think.
We thought the reasons weren't holding up anymore, we could have changed it, but that takes so long so we just did it in secret, thats ok yea? Its "just the constitution".
Is this your standpoint?
> The constitution is great, but it's hardly the perfect authority on everything and shouldn't be revered as such.
It was supposed to be. And when things were found to no longer work it was supposed to be amended with all branches of government having their say.
If one thing can be disregarded "because its not perfect" then all things can be disregarded. Or at least, if you think they can't just all be disregarded, because some things would be crossing the line, who is the one that gets to draw the line? Previously we had this piece of paper which drew the line, but then this guy said online it wasn't perfect.