[FairOpinion]

The author, Meese is Ball Professor of Law at William and Mary School of Law.

Excellent article, makes good, valid points. Recommend reading the entire article and bookmarking it.

[dirtboy]

Money paragraph:

Nor must the president seek approval before monitoring communications between al-Qaida and suspected U.S. accomplices. A warrant-based "cops and robbers" approach is wholly out of place in time of war. FISA's backwards-looking civilian law enforcement model would hamper the president's ability to identify targets of pre-emptive action before they strike and undermine his ability to fight the war Congress authorized.

Clinton treated the fight against al Qaeda as a law enforcement problem. And liberals still want to take that approach. But, then again, the typical liberal approach to failure is to do more of what failed in the hopes that it might succeed if you do enough of it.

[DJ MacWoW]

Thank you and bookmarked.

[Boot Hill]

article:   "The law binding the president includes the Constitution, which trumps ordinary legislation like FISA."

Like a puppy that just pee'd on the carpet, Congress needs to be grabbed by the collar, drug over here, and have their noses rubbed in that quote.

[YOUGOTIT]

OUTSTANDING! Well said but the left-wing anti-Americans in the US Senate cannot read so they will not be impressed nor care.

[FlingWingFlyer]

The solution to this whole thing is very simple. If you don't want your "liberties" violated, don't send emails and make phone calls to Islamic terrorists who want to kill Americans. It's not rocket science.

[mrsmith]

to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against "nations, organizations or persons" that "he determines planned, authorized, or aided the September 11 attacks."
-----
" ...'whenever a statute gives a discretionary power to any person to be exercised by him upon his own
opinion of certain facts, it is a sound rule of construction that the statute constitutes him the
sole and exclusive judge of the existence of those facts.' The grounds upon which that opinion
is maintained are set forth in the report, and we think are conclusive.
The same principle applies
to the case how before the court. Undoubtedly, if the President in exercising this power shall fall
into error, or invade the rights of the people of the State, it would be in the power of Congress
to apply the proper remedy.
But the courts must administer the law as they find it."

LUTHER v. BORDEN, 48 U.S. 1 (1849) citing Martin v. Mott, 1827

But of course in Justice Kennedy's Supreme Court words mean whatever he wants them to. I doubt "sound rule of construction" has any meaning at all.