Replies

It's not his premise, it's the Supreme court (and many other courts) ruling that Congress cannot limit an inherent Constitutional power by legislation. Congress cannot amend the Constitution by legislation, only through the specified amendment process.

I just read Dickerson v. United States, 530 US 428 (2000), and it stands for a "slightly" different principle from "The Constitution embodies certain inherent and unilateral powers in the President that Congress cannot limit."

In Dickerson, the Court held that Congress could not overrule a Court precedent (Miranda) by passing a statute. It stands for supremacy of a Court-created rule, not supremacy of the Constitution. Congress aimed, by statute passed after Miranda, to have confessions admissible in criminal prosecutions, in some cases even if a Miranda warning was not recited to the accused before the voluntary confession was given.

The principle of Dickerson, if applied to Rasul v. Bush (03-334), 542 US 466 (2004), will invalidate a statutory arrangement recently proposed by Lindsey Graham and passed by Congress, that limits Gitmo detainees access to the writ of habeas corpus.

Dickerson illuminates a battle between Congress and the Supreme Court, where the item in the balance is the individual 5th amendment right against self incrimination. I tend to agree with the logic of the dissent in Dickerson, FWIW. The excerpt below doesn't illustrate the logic, but posted here just for reading enjoyment ...

Today's judgment converts Miranda from a milestone of judicial overreaching into the very Cheops' Pyramid (or perhaps the Sphinx would be a better analogue) of judicial arrogance. In imposing its Court-made code upon the States, the original opinion at least asserted that it was demanded by the Constitution. Today's decision does not pretend that it is--and yet still asserts the right to impose it against the will of the people's representatives in Congress. Far from believing that stare decisis compels this result, I believe we cannot allow to remain on the books even a celebrated decision--especially a celebrated decision--that has come to stand for the proposition that the Supreme Court has power to impose extraconstitutional constraints upon Congress and the States. This is not the system that was established by the Framers, or that would be established by any sane supporter of government by the people.
I dissent from today's decision, and, until §3501 is repealed, will continue to apply it in all cases where there has been a sustainable finding that the defendant's confession was voluntary.

The issue before us in the NSA discussion is a rather complex interplay between the people's 4th amendment rights, the president's power to conduct war, the President's power to call and conduct war in exigent circumstances, Congress's power to call war and define it's limits, and the Court's role in adjudicating disputes. What are the limits of the inherent powers?

I'm still waiting for you to provide a citation or lead as to your assertion that Clinton used warrantless wiretapping in the context of OKC. I've looked myself, but haven't come up with any leads. Perhaps you were referring to the warrantless entry into Aldrich Ames residence?