[inquest]

1. They based this conclusion on what? If they based in on his status as CinC, then this is a military matter, whether military officers, as traditionally defined, are the ones carrying out his orders or not. And there's not much else in Article II that the court could have based it on.

2. Nowhere in these long-standing interpretations did they hold that Congress does not have the power to regulate this power.

[Boot Hill]

inquest:   "the President's only power when it comes to surveillance is that he's commander-in-chief of the military."

Incorrect, the President's power over foreign intelligence comes not only from the requirements of the office of Commader-in-Chief, but also as this nations sole representative in matters of foreign affairs.

"However, because of the President's constitutional duty to act for the United States in the field of foreign relations, and his inherent power to protect national security in the context of foreign affairs, we reaffirm what we held in United States v. Clay, supra, that the President may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence."

--United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 426 (1973)

inquest:   "Nowhere in these long-standing interpretations did they hold that Congress does not have the power to regulate this power."

Regulate? Yes. Infringe? Absolutely not, and the courts have said so.

"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent [constitutional] authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power."

--In re Sealed Case, 310, F3d. 717, 742 (2002)

[binkdeville]

you're right pal..so let the terrorist call into the us all they want...just hope you're not in the building they blow up when it happens again ..and it will !