Brian Kilmeade is subbing for Tony? We'll be nice...won't we? ;-)
Have a great weekend everyone, and Happy St. Patrick's day!
Seems to more or less take York's piece as it was taken her at FR.
I had another thought, that using In Re: Sealed Case as "enough" on its own to justify some unknow surveillance, is very much like the debate here some time ago that 50 USC 1802 was enough, on its own.
The thought goes on, "but not even Attorney General Gonzales or President Bush are making those arguments." And in the DOJ initial reaction, as well as in Senate hearings, as well as in the DoJ "Whitepaper," the administration cites to both, In re: Sealed Case, and 50 USC 1802, as well as other materials, to make the case that the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program is a permissible activity of the executive.
This piece does a good job of presenting both sides of the argument.
The narrow point I am trying to insert is that In Re: Sealed Case is not enough, on its own, to support the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program. It's a darn good case, I like it - but it doesn't stand for the proposition that the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program is Constitutional.