And<p>&quot;It is wholly implausible to suppose that with so many of the newly-adopted Constitution&#x27;s drafters and ratifiers in the legislature, the First Congress would so thoroughly trample on that document&#x27;s very first substantive mandate: &quot;All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States[.]&quot; U.S. Const. Art. I, § 1. And yet that is precisely the reading the government proposes when it insists that a court may empower the executive to exercise power that the legislature has considered yet declined to allow.<p><i>It is a reading that thoroughly undermines</i> both the legislature&#x27;s own prerogative to reject a legislative proposal effectively and efficiently (without the need to affirmatively ban the proposed authority) and <i>the more general protection against tyranny that the Founders believed required the careful separation of governmental powers.</i>&quot;<p>--<p>As the power that the legislature &quot;considered yet declined to allow&quot; the judge refers to the existing law, CALEA (Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act):<p>--<p>&quot;it is arguable that CALEA explicitly absolves a company like Apple of any responsibility to provide the assistance the government seeks here and also&quot; &quot;even if CALEA does not have such an explicit prohibition, it is part of a larger legislative scheme that is so comprehensive as to imply a prohibition against imposing requirements on private entities such as Apple that the statute does not affirmatively prescribe.&quot;<p>--<p>Another side, according to Reuters:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reuters.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;us-apple-encryption-deny-idUSKCN0W22Q0" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reuters.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;us-apple-encryption-deny-idUS...</a><p>&quot;The Justice Department is &quot;disappointed&quot; in Orenstein&#x27;s ruling and plans to ask a higher judge within the same federal district to review the matter in coming days, a department representative said.&quot;