I agree. But that too can go either way in any given case - unconstitutional as too restrictive on executive power, or unconstitutional impingement on the 4th. Of those two, the latter is highly unlikely, given the genesis of FISA itself and the language therein. But my bigger point is there is no way to tell, outside of a fact patter that involves the surveillance and a prosecution that depends on said surveillance for evidence.
I'd like to see (and think we will) a bit more cooperation between the President and Congress on fighting terrorism. As it is, it seems each side (President and Congress) is goading the other.
I see the 4th as providing protections in case of criminal charges. But I take your point of the need for case law.
Congress...with BOTH parties...seem less inclined to work with President Bush the closer to the election it gets...
However, I do have to chuckle when I hear the Dem Senators bragging about how the Judiciary Bill is "great" because Specter and Bush agree with it...LOL
I have read several posts on many differnent threads where you have deconstructed posted information and then opined on the relevance of that information to the question of constitutional limitations on the Executive Branch.
I read your refutation of assetions made by Byron York about the nature of the Court of Review's rulings in the action known as "Sealed case".
You have postited, if I may encapsulate, that there is no way to judge the constituionality of the Presidents actions in regards to warrantless eavesdropping without knowing all the circumstances relevant to each action. This is not what you said but my take on your position. Is it accurate?
My problem with your analysis of the issue is that you give no benefit-of-the-doubt to the President. If this program is operated as has been described, with prior notification of appropriate congressional committee personnel, with a comprehensive review process that insures some congressional oversight, and with the acknowledgement by the Court of Review to the real limitations of the FISA law on Presidential authority, is'nt it real likely that, absent a far-left-of-center Supreme Court, this program is entirely lawful? And if not, how should Abraham Lincoln and FDR be judged considering their (mis?)use of Article 2?
I know this is a "hypothetical" but I would appreciate an answer.
Incidently, how can a President work with a congress that is both predisposed to limit the powers of the Executive Branch, and full of members that don't care about anything but damaging the President as much as possible?