Maybe, maybe not; that's irrelevant. They're not asking for any more info than they already receive. They're simply asking for it in written form. The provision in question originated in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I have no idea who actually wrote it or why. In the Senate Committee report, the analysis/discussion of section 305 is as follows:
Section 305 amends the National Security Act of 1947 to require that notifications to Congress of intelligence activities and intelligence failures be made in writing and contain a concise statement of facts pertinent to the report and an explanation of the significance of the intelligence activity or failure covered by the report. This section also requires the Director of Central Intelligence to establish standards and procedures applicable to such reports. This section is designed to bring clarity and uniformity to an essential element of congressional oversight of the Intelligence Community. While not intended to increase or change reporting requirements, it is designed to ensure that reports made pursuant to the National Security Act are properly memorialized and consistent in form and content. The Committee notes that this provision is not intended to discourage prompt oral notifications, but requires that they be followed immediately by a written report fulfilling the requirements of this section.
This sounds like business as usual amongst the separated powers, not the long-awaited but somehow perpetually postponed coup d'etat establishing the Bushid Dynasty (as prophesied in the Oracles of Paeleodamus).
The idea that only the Supreme Court has the authority to have an opinion on the constitutionality of acts of Congress is a liberal nostrum that has helped turn the Court into a danger to the republic; it has only held sway for half a century or so, and conservatives ought to be ashamed to have any truck with it. Here is a scholarly sort of First Things article with the relevant information:
How the Court Became Supreme
Bush is entirely right, indeed obligated, to resist any form of compliance with this rule that would, in his best judgment, interfere with his performance of his duties as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief.
Luis, good point about Daschle and creeping Parliamentary supremacy, even if this isn't exactly a case of it. There is the threat to the separation of powers, not Bush. But I suppose the Congressional supremists on this thread must welcome his initiatives to turn back the insidious King George and his drive to reinstate the Divine Right of Kings.
I've been sick about half of this year and haven't even had the energy to lurk much. Nice to see that war and world upheaval haven't changed the basic structure of life and argument on FR.