This will probably be decided, like most constitutional issues, by a Judge that will be forced to interpret the 4th/5th amendment, in the ever changing light of 'reasonableness', as it applies to the case at hand.
It will then become precedent, adding to the long list of very important judicial decisions that must decide how to apply a law with very loosely defined vocabulary. How a normal citizen is expected to remain apprised of every single law, every interpretation of the law, and every precedent set by a judge ruling on the law, is beyond me.
If the original laws (in this case, the Bill of Rights) were defined as well as many judicial rulings are, we likely wouldn't be arguing if what is being asked of Apple is 'reasonable' -- as what constitutes 'reasonable' would be defined by the law itself.
This doesn't need to become a constitutional argument. Congress can pass a law forbidding the government from forcing a manufacturer to build a back door. Simple as that.
It will then become precedent, adding to the long list of very important judicial decisions that must decide how to apply a law with very loosely defined vocabulary. How a normal citizen is expected to remain apprised of every single law, every interpretation of the law, and every precedent set by a judge ruling on the law, is beyond me.
If the original laws (in this case, the Bill of Rights) were defined as well as many judicial rulings are, we likely wouldn't be arguing if what is being asked of Apple is 'reasonable' -- as what constitutes 'reasonable' would be defined by the law itself.