Wow, quite a speech.... I find it hard to believe that Will's arguments are not based in historical fact. Quite clearly our Constitution sets forth checks and balances of power...as for the instant issue, I don't think you are being truthful when proclaiming the answer is so cut and dry...or "clear"... If anything, Consitutional issues are often quite foggy, including this one. Will's interpretation is reasonable, as is the President's. It's what we have a Supreme Court for--to decide the issue.
The Constitution sets forth authorities. The Commander in Chief is responsible for directing the military in protecting the nation from foreign attacks. No other branch. Only Congress can authorize initiation of an aggressive war (Like if we decided we wanted to seize a peaceful Mexico just for the additional beach-front property), or *pay* for an army. Note that many laws Congress passes do not prohibit executive branch officials from running various programs, but rather state that no funds will be used to persue them. This is part of the inherent recognition that the Executive branch has authority of its own.
From the time of the attacks by the Barbary Pirates during the terms of Jefferson and Adams, it has been accepted by the courts that no such War declaration is neccessary if another group declares war on us, or attacks us. Such an explicit declaration does however trigger a whole gamut of additional laws and powers to go into effect (additional penalties for treason, habeus corpus suspension...etc.).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1551281/posts
Every administration, liberal or conservative, has claimed this warrantless surveillance power, and no court has ever denied it. The FISA court of review explained, citing the 14th Circuit's 1980 decision in a case involving the surveillance of a Vietnamese spy named David Truong, "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." The court added, "We take it for granted that the President does have that authority."
The court in the Truong case noted that the executive "not only has superior expertise in the area of foreign intelligence, it is also constitutionally designated as the pre-eminent authority in foreign affairs." And the Constitution's framers knew what they were about, according to the Truong court: "Attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign-intelligence initiatives."
Ummmm... not really. First, the exercise of interest by one branch against another is exactly what was envisioned by the framers as a way of limiting their powers. How this is resolved is intended to be primarily under the clear wording of the Constitution, secondarily through the political process. The Federal courts role in that regard was originally regarded as quite small.
Second, under Article III, Congress has ultimate authority over the Federal Courts, both in the manner of their organization and in the matter of their jurisdiction "with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." Contrary to popular opinion, the three branches of government are not co-equal, they were not designed to be co-equal, and in particular the courts were NOT intended to be the final authority. That power is reserved to the authority that granted the Constitution of the United States: the People.