This debate about FISA is bogus because FISA is not a comprehensive court. It is a specialized court with a very narrow and limited scope.
Many legal activities can and always have legally and constitutionally bypassed FISA.
You're correct that FISA's competence is limited. It's scope is limited to matters that deal with foreign intelligence information.
The subject of warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes is in the scope of jurisdictional grant. Can you clarify your assertion, "This debate about FISA is bogus because FISA is not a comprehensive court"? What are the proper parameters of discussion to take it out of the realm of bogus?
The Chief Justice of the United States shall publicly designate 11 district court judges from seven of the United States judicial circuits of whom no fewer than 3 shall reside within 20 miles of the District of Columbia who shall constitute a court which shall have jurisdiction to hear applications for and grant orders approving electronic surveillance anywhere within the United States under the procedures set forth in this chapter.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court shall have jurisdiction to hear applications for and grant orders approving a physical search for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information anywhere within the United States ...
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Attorney General or a designated attorney for the Government may make an application for an order or an extension of an order authorizing or approving the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device for any investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities ...Each application under this section shall be in writing under oath or affirmation to--
(1) a judge of the court established by section 1803 (a) of this title; or
(2) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28 who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications for and grant orders approving the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device on behalf of a judge of that court.
The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities ...Each application under this section--
(1) shall be made to--
(A) a judge of the court established by section 1803 (a) of this title; or
(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court ...
Many legal activities can and always have legally and constitutionally bypassed FISA.
Indeed. Driving, becoming incorporated, obtaining patents and trademarks, entering into contracts, getting married, having babies, obtaining health care ... gosh, I figure most every legal activity and even all sorts of criminal activity that is other than the items listed in the FISA statute can be done without reference to FISA. Likewise most actions by the President are done without reference to FISA. But since the discussion in this thread is generally about warrantless electronic surveillance for anti-terrorism purposes, FISA reasonably seems to be a natural part of the discussion.
But I am quite curious, in all seriousness, to read your proposal for discussion, to take it in a direction that isn't bogus.