I said, " ... it's an error in logic, on several levels, to point to In Re: Sealed case and say 'that stands for the proposition that the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program is Constitutional.'"
First, In re: Sealed Case wasn't on the issue of what constitutes the extent of permissible wiretapping - it never got to a 4th amendment analysis. Second, we don't know what sort of "probable cause" (shorthand for finding a connection to foreign attachment) is present in the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program. It's not possible to draw a reasoned opinion on constitutionality until a fact pattern is presented. Third, the cases that In re: Sealed Case relies on, primarily Truong and Keith, a) involved judicial oversight and b) resulted in some evidence being tossed for failure to meet 4th amendment requirements.
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. [snipped remaining 2 paragraphs]
In fact, there is some argument that the FISA court is UNConstitutional because it limits the war power of the President.
I choose to believe the Attorney General and the Constitution, and not the Court, and certainly not any buffoon in Congress.
Where I come from .. that is the same as saying that York is wrong