Wiretapping with Warrant Constitutional and a damn good idea

I don't get the angst and outrage and white hot purity over Obama's statement.  He says:

Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over

On the rec list is a diary implying that somehow, this position isn't constitutional....as if the constitution itself doesn't allow wiretapping.  I don't pretend to be a Larry Tribe but we all SHOULD KNOW that wiretapping is constitutional if there's a warrant.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the Fourth Amendment applies to wiretapping at all (yes, it's been held not to), there's no doubt that the unconstitutional part of the Bush program is the refusal to obtain WARRANTS.

Indeed, like ANY OTHER SEARCH, a warrant makes it constitutional.  

Now, maybe someone will argue that there should never be a search and seizure, even with a warrant.  

But more likely, some will argue that warrants are too easy to get.  And I wouldn't disagree.  

But if you think the law is getting too many warrants, and investigating the wrong people, here's a suggestion.

Put a new man in charge of law enforcement.

Get new judges to review the warrants.

And you do that by voting for OBAMA, not by giving him shit and demanding he say something stupid that implies he won't wiretap with warrants.

Here's the real constitutional lesson you ought to learn: no consitutional clause is going to protect you if McCain wins the next election.  You don't get a constitional right by another four years of Bush abuses.

Elections matter.  Elections matter.  Elections. Matter.