[inquest]

inquest: "I said that they didn't hold that his 'inherent constitutional authority' in one area is any more sacred than in any other."

Which of course is a non sequitur, since nobody has claimed that the court made such a holding

So his authority is equally sacred in all areas? That means Congress does not have power to regulate how he enforces the laws domestically?

it follows naturally from the court's holding in Marbury, that "a law repugnant to the Constitution is void".

Not until you establish that it is repugnant to the Constitution it doesn't. And thus far, no court has ever held that any part of FISA is repugnant to the Constitution, or that any law which regulates the exercise of the President's authority (apart from those undermining his authority over his subordinates) is likewise repugnant on the grounds that it violates the "separation-of-powers doctrine".

[Boot Hill]

inquest:   "So his authority is equally sacred in all areas?"

No, it means your contention informs no part of any debate over whether the President acted constitutionally in ordering warrantless foreign intelligence intercepts.

inquest:   "Not until you establish that it is repugnant to the Constitution it doesn't."

I don't need to establish anything beyond citing the In re: Sealed Case court's observation that "FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power", and noting that the court's observation stands as the soundest and most authoritative legal argument yet advanced regarding FISA's impact on the President's actions.