In logic, it's fruitless to try to place the burden of proof on a negative statement. Example: "Prove there isn't an invisble ball of undetectable mass swirling in my hand."
What I was saying is a general rule that's valid across every subject in logical debate, and it is valid as a response for the sentence I quoted. What you're saying isn't a rebuttal to my point.
That's unnecessary. We've already seen, via the leaks, that dragnet surveillance is happening. The NSA's claim that domestic communications are sacrosanct are put to lie by the revelations that the DEA and IRS are both using laundered NSA domestic surveillance data. We're now well beyond the need to prove that the government is in a state of sin with regard to the Constitution. The issue now is what remedies we'll pursue.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that it's fruitless to place the burden of proof on a statement which is syllogistically isolated from any statement known to be true?