It takes us right back to the status quo. It says that the Attorney General, that would be Todd Blanche, or the Acting Attorney General, and the Director of DNI, shall establish the procedures for determining if there is probable cause. I thought that James Madison and George Mason had taken care of that. I thought the Constitution established the meaning of probable cause. Now, it is being delegated to the Acting Attorney General. It doesn't even say the acting but whoever the Attorney General might be. Perhaps acting is imported through this language. Who knows? Do we really want Pam Bondi or Kash Patel or Todd Blanche figuring out what our Fourth Amendment rights are and then they get to decide for themselves without going to a court? At the very least, even if we are not going to have an actual warrant, there must be an independent judge, a magistrate, involved in defining whether or not there is probable cause to search American citizens. That is the bottom line here. Everybody knows and understands our Constitution and, yes, our Constitution applies in peacetime. It applies in wartime. It applies to American citizens in America. It applies to American citizens abroad.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing concerns over probable cause and Fourth Amendment rights in relation to the Attorney General's authority.
Share
More from Jamie Raskin
But the good news is that the vast majority of Americans across the political spectrum are standing up for our democracy and our freedom in our free and fair elections.
It seems Republican Members of Congress are lashing out because they just realized their communications with the White House became presidential records preserved at the National Archives as required by the Presidential Records Act.
But success on the merits is not the goal. It is meant to harass Jack Smith. It is meant to please their Fox News viewership. It is meant to whitewash their own participation in a scheme to overthrow our elections.





