[inquest]

The President has all that he needs in the decisions of virtually every court to have ever addressed the matter and that state that the President's warrantless intercepts are constitutional.

Constitutional is not synonymous with uninfringible. When you can find court decisions that say that it is, then you'd have somewhere to go with this.

[Boot Hill]

inquest:   "Constitutional is not synonymous with uninfringible."

If FISA had in fact infringed upon the exercise of the President's constitutional powers, then the FISA court in In re: Sealed Case would have noted that infringement when they concluded...

"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."

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

Not only did the FISA court find NO such infringement, they also concluded...

"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)