Oh please. Do you or do you not believe that FISA is repugnant to the Constitution?
If you think FISA is constitutional, then why did you (in multiple posts) quote Marbury's "a law repugnant to the Constitution is void"? What exactly was your point with that quote?
If you think FISA is unconstitutional, explain why. Do you think it encroaches on the President's authority or not?
Now, to repeat the questions which you missed in my previous post:
Do you understand the distinction between Congress's ensuring that the President doesn't act beyond his constitutional authority and Congress's actually encroaching on the President's actual constitutional authority?
Can you show me one provision in FISA which prevents the President from performing any acts which he is constitutionally authorized to do?
LOL, one of the first rules of good debate practice is to never allow your opponent to divert you into addressing unnecessary matters!
All I need offer is just what the In re: Sealed Case court concluded: "FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power".
And what did the court say were the President's constitutional powers? "[T]he President did have inherent [constitutional] authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information".
Go back and take a look. At the time you were having difficulty coming to grips with the maxim that "the Constitution trumps the ordinary acts of Congress". You were supposing that it was two constitutional powers in collision, when in fact, and as the Marbury court explains, it is simply a case of a statute of Congress that came in conflict with the Constitution.
Trust me, it was not that I missed them, it was that they missed the point under discussion. And that point is, whether the President had constitutional authority to conduct warrantless intercepts of foreign intelligence information. And that question has been asked, answered and proven six different ways from Sunday with a resounding YES!