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."
|
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."
|
But no such finding was made, so all you have is speculation on what they might have held if it was made.
No court has held that constitutional is synonymous with uninfringible, and that's what you'd need in order to show that any court holding supports the President's claims of independence from FISA. You have nowhere to go with this. You're just recycling the same tired old stuff that's been shot down more than once before.