Last week in the last debate before the Iowa caucuses, Rand Paul said, "The bulk collection of your phone data, the invasion of your privacy did not stop one terrorist attack. I don't think you have to give up your liberty for a false sense of security."

And he's right. The White House couldn't point to a single case where the bulk collection of phone data thwarted a terrorist attack. An analysis done by the New American Foundation also found that the bulk collection of phone records by the NSA "has had no discernible impact on preventing acts of terrorism.”

The invasion of privacy runs afoul of our Fourth Amendment rights. The use of generalized warrants was something that the Founding Fathers were against. There is a reason why the 4th Amendment has the words,"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." It is in our interest to end these programs because they do nothing but violate our constitutional rights. Just look at the origins of our 4th Amendment rights.

James Otis Jr., a lawyer from Boston, defended against these so-called 'writs of assistance' (which were used by the British to search premises for smuggled goods without a specialized warrant) in court in 1761. For five hours he railed against them as an over extension of governmental power. He cautioned against the power it gave to law enforcement and those under the king's dominion saying, "Every one with this writ may be a tyrant; if this commission be legal, a tyrant in a legal manner, also, may control, imprison, or murder any one within the realm."

James Otis realized the the terrible power it gave to the government and that it must be limited and cautioned that it might lead to turmoil of society. "Others will ask it from self-defense; one arbitrary exertion will provoke another, until society be involved in tumult and in blood."

Those who argue that mass surveillance works have failed to mention how they have stopped the attacks in Paris and others. The metadata surveillance in Paris failed to do its duty, and yet officials want to continue to do it, whether it is in the United States or across the world. The FBI itself has said that the NSA program hasn't helped crack any major terrorist case and yet we still hear more and more calls for surveillance.

The right to be free from an overbearing government is essential to a free society. We cannot give up our liberty for security, nor should we give up our right to privacy. To do so will lead us down a path of tyranny, one of which we see in the Patriot Act and the USA Freedom Act. We must dismantle NSA spying on Americans, along with any mass surveillance program we have and return to the principles of our Republic.

We must oppose the calls for more surveillance from the likes of Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Donald Trump, and Jeb Bush. We must oppose the surveillance of any places without a warrant and we shouldn't spy on mosques. The right to privacy must be reserved, otherwise we will have betrayed the principles of the Constitution. We cannot allow the government to amass more power to spy on us and take our rights away.

James Madison said, "Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties or his possessions.”

Justice Brandeis said it best in his defense of the Fourth Amendment in Olmstead v. United States (1928).

"The right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."