My understanding is that their Constitutional dodge is rooted in Scalia's originalism: the 4th says "papers", which means specifically physical pieces of paper, not phone calls or emails.
What I've been wondering about though, is the legal definition of "effects" (noun, not verb). That term seems very broad to me, and should include emails, but I'm not a lawyer.
They don't need a dodge, they just ignore the law or get new laws that circumvent previous laws. With little or no oversight this is easily accomplished. Especially since the group that requires oversight is gathering information and information is power.
This is nothing new, read up on J. Edgar Hoover with his wiretapping and files on almost everybody. Sometimes with White House knowledge and approval, sometimes without. All this while completely ignoring that quaint document down the street called the Constitution. Doing things like that is easy if you can hand over a note to someone that starts out "It'd be a shame if people found out about [insert criminal/embarrassing act here]." Information is power.
Oh, I agree. But they do successfully maintain the veneer. Regardless of how, the Supreme Court is complicit, and they engage in some tortured linguistic judo in the process.
What I've been wondering about though, is the legal definition of "effects" (noun, not verb). That term seems very broad to me, and should include emails, but I'm not a lawyer.