As a wise man once said, "You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts". And the facts here are that the contention has been ably proven by the holding in those numerous appellate court decisions, you derided as "irrelevant".
The President's actions play zero part in determining whether a law enacted by Congress is constitutional. FISA's provisions stand or fall exclusively on their own merit. Nothing the President does, can change that basic fact of law.
The principle of constitutional law elucidated by Justice Marshall over 200 years ago, is controlling irrespective of any "Presidential action" involved, it applies to any enactment by Congress, that infringes upon a power granted the President by the Constitution, and makes such laws null and void. Presidential action is irrelevant to applying this principle.
Why are you arguing this long-settled point of law with me when you should be arguing it with its author, CJ John Marshall? You're entitled to read Marbury any way you want, but you're not entitled to unilaterally change 200 years of settled jurisprudence, because it offends your sense of right and wrong. If you want to campaign to overturn Marbury v. Madison, have at it, just leave me out.
I would have thought that taking you to task for your previous disingenuous hyperbole (post #329) would have been sufficient, but apparently not. To repeat, I neither said, suggested, nor implied that the Constitution "required [the people] to give the President whatever funds he claims to need".
You can't, it would be unconstitutional to do so based on the reasoning you laid out in your previous hypothetical.
That's not correct. Presidential authority vs. Congressional authority to enact FISA (specifically the President's authority to spy vs. Congress's authority to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces) has never been decided by a court. And as I've already pointed out more than once, Congress's power is granted specifically in the Constitution, and the President's power isn't. So, to assume that the courts will favor the President's implied power over Congress's explicit power is just that, an assumption. Regardless, claiming that this matter has already been settled by multiple courts is simply not true. What I think you fail to realize is that the settled 4th Amendment issue is totally separate from the unsettled Dueling Powers issue.
The President's actions play zero part in determining whether a law enacted by Congress is constitutional. FISA's provisions stand or fall exclusively on their own merit.
Of course, contrary to your claim that numerous appellate courts have already done so, FISA has never been declared unconstitutional. Trust me, your assumption that FISA is unconstitutional is not a binding precedent.
Why are you arguing this long-settled point of law with me when you should be arguing it with its author, CJ John Marshall?
If you think I'm ignoring it, then you haven't understood a word I've said. Just because I don't accept your assertion that FISA is unconstitutional, that doesn't mean I'm ignoring your point. I'm only saying that I think you're wrong, and at the very least you're certainly jumping the gun.
To repeat, I neither said, suggested, nor implied that the Constitution "required [the people] to give the President whatever funds he claims to need".
Right, you only stated that we can't take the funds away without some appropriate reason, as if there's some significant distinction between your comment and my hyperbole.