[Boot Hill]

inquest:   "Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate his behavior in that area."

Article I, section 8, clause 18, provides Congress with only a limited right to regulate the activities of the executive branch. The separation of powers doctrine defines what those limits are, and it prohibits Congress from enacting any regulation that would infringe on a constitutional grant of authority for the executive branch.

Virtually every appellate court to have ruled on this matter have concluded that the President had inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.

Therefore, any attempt by Congress to limit the President's constitutional grant of authority would be a violation of the doctrine of the separation of powers, and thus unconstitutional.

inquest:   "you've provided no evidence that any appellate court has issued any holdings (as opposed to dicta) to the contrary."

That is demonstrably incorrect, since all four cases I cited concluded the President had such inherent constitutional authority. If you continue with this false assertion, you will simply force me into reposting them, your choice.

But aside from that, I've let you slide on your misstatement of what constitutes "dicta" (and the value of dicta in legal arguments), for some time now, but it has come time to call you on your dishonesty.

When the leading case in this matter, In re: Sealed Case, stated...

"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

...that was NOT dicta. Dicta is "opinions that are extraneous to the line of reasoning that leads to the decision in the case". In the above example, the courts finding was neither opinion, nor extraneous to the line of reasoning that lead to the decision. The court's finding of fact was necessary to assist in answering the question implicitly raised by the appeal as to whether Truong articulated the appropriate constitutional standard.

It is dishonest for you to mislabel those case quotes as dicta, or even for you to suggest that dicta is somehow an improper legal argument, had I used it.

[inquest]

inquest: "[Congress] has every bit as much power to regulate him in that area as in any other area where he's authorized to act, such as domestic law enforcement. And you've provided no evidence that any appellate court has issued any holdings (as opposed to dicta) to the contrary.

That is demonstrably incorrect, since all four cases I cited concluded the President had such inherent constitutional authority.

As you can see above, I didn't say that these courts didn't hold that the President has "inherent constitutional authority". I said that they didn't hold that his "inherent constitutional authority" in one area is any more sacred than in any other.

When the leading case in this matter, In re: Sealed Case, stated... "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." ...that was NOT dicta.

That's not what I said was dictum. I told you already that the dictum was what you highlighted at the bottom of #289. It was not necessary to the resolution of that case, because the court there did not rule against any part of FISA.