[inquest]

1. Your use of, not just a double-negative, but a triple-negative, makes your sentence all but incomprehensible!

Attention span not your strong suit? His powers of surveillance are not uninfringible by Congress. You hadn't contested that. Better?

2. Congress has the authority, under the Necessary and Proper clause, to regulate the powers granted the executive by the Constitution, but only in so far as those regulations are for the purposes of "carrying into execution" those powers, not limiting or infringing them.

It also has the power under the military clauses to regulate military matters. And given that the administration has specifically cited a war resolution in its justification of this program, that makes this a military matter.

Also, if the "necessary and proper" clause gives Congress the power to give the President tools with which to carry out his functions, it also has the power to withdraw those tools, in whole or in part.

3. ... Even the FISA court itself has concluded that the President has the inherent constitutional power to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. If he has the power, then it hasn't been infringed.

Non sequitur.

[Boot Hill]

inquest:   "You hadn't contested that."

Of course I did.

inquest:   "Better?"

Only in the sense that you went from a triple-negative to a double-negative.

inquest:   "It also has the power under the military clauses to regulate military matters."

No sale, under that argument, Congress is limited to making "rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces", and is therefore not empowered to regulate the methodology or circumstances of intelligence gathering, which are a function of the President's sole discretion in matters of foreign affairs and national security.

inquest:   "the administration has specifically cited a war resolution in its justification of this program"

The AUMF defense is irrelevant to a discussion of the constitutional defense of the President's actions.

inquest:   "Also, if the "necessary and proper" clause gives Congress the power to give the President tools with which to carry out his functions, it also has the power to withdraw those tools, in whole or in part."

Arguable, but nonetheless it is an irrelevant digression.

inquest:   "Non sequitur."

It is not only relevant, but it is the core argument that undercuts everything you've tried to advance. You're going to see that statement posted a lot, so you'd better start getting used to it now.

Even the FISA court itself has concluded that the President has the inherent constitutional power to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. If he has the power, then it hasn't been infringed.