The State Secrets privilege is unconstitutional.

Definitely agree with that. "The executive branch seeks to uproot people's lives, outside the public eye and behind closed doors. Democracies die behind closed doors. The First Amendment, through a free press, protects the people's right to know that their government acts fairly, lawfully, and accurately in deportment hearings. When the government begins closing doors, it selectively controls information rightfully belonging to the people. Selective information is misinformation."

--Judge Damon J. Keith

Ok... I don't get why people disagree and fail to explain themselves...
Does anyone actually want to explain their answer?
Or are all you 4 people working for the gov??

They throw the rock and scurry for the shadows....

I think the use of the State Secret privileged in this administration has been unconscionable and probably illegal, due to violating the premise of the precedent, but State Secrets itself isn't, in my opinion, unconstitutional.

The rules of evidence, which cover lawyer-client, doctor-patient, and other similar privileges are not in the realm of constitutional law -- they are legislative law and court precedent. State Secrets are also a measure of precedent, and I could not find anything in the constitution that DIRECTLY implied that state secrets were a violation of the constitution.

The best claim is that it is a violation of the freedom of the press or the freedom of speech. Which isn't really true -- as I understand it, if the press were to discover the data, they could publish and not violate state secrets; its only the courts that are affected by the privileged.

Now, certainly, the Bush (Shrub) Administration has violated the constitution in several ways, and has been abusively using the privilege to harass civil rights organizations and quash court cases which it has found distasteful. That, however, is an illegal (and possibly unconstitutional) USE of the state secrets privilege. That doesn't invalidate the existence, though. The police can execute an illegal and unconstitutional search and seizure; that doesn't mean there aren't legal and constitutional uses of the police or search and seizure.

There is nothing, in any draft of the constituition, that speaks out against the possibility of it existing.

It is shady ("shady" being "easily used to immoral purposes"), but it is a necessary evil, it is not unconstituitional, and nor was it an unwise decision to enAct.

The unlawful uses of it are... well, unlawful. But those are uses; not the nature nor intent of the Act itself.

See Marphod's post above for a more complete argument on the same lines. Consider mine here a summary of the above.