Bush allowed NSA to spy within USA without warrants

[Hurin_Rules]

Thanks, Pindar.

A few follow ups then, if I may.

You seem to be arguing, then, that only the AUMF gave the president the authority to conduct the specific type of wiretaps I mentioned. I find it hard to believe that the congressmen and women who authorized force believed that the type of surveillance in question constituted 'military force'. Maybe you could walk me through the argument here that maintains that 'surveillance' is 'force'?

The congressional research service specifically called this argument into question:

The report was particularly critical of a central administration justification for the program, that Congress had effectively approved such eavesdropping soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by authorizing "all necessary and appropriate force" against the terrorist groups responsible. Congress "does not appear to have authorized or acquiesced in such surveillance," the report said, adding that the administration reading of some provisions of federal wiretap law could render them "meaningless."

Here's the full article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/politics/07nsa.html

This is a big question. Regardless the theoretically strained position Judicial Review occupies, it has become normative in American Jurisprudence. Therefore should SCOTUS rule the President or any branch of government does not hold power X or should do Y this has typically led to compliance from the other branches. A SCOTUS ruling can reverse a previous SCOTUS ruling or go counter to all previous understanding of a law or legal principle. There are examples of this though it is not considered the norm. If SCOTUS were to directly challenge the President's right to gather foreign intelligence in order to protect the nation a couple of possibilities arise. One, the President backs down. Two, the President refuses to recognize any SCOTUS authority to speak to his principle charge of office. If the second were to happen it would mean a Constitutional crises.

Well that's quite interesting too: the president claims a power, SCOTUS denies he has it. There's no check or balance inherent in the system to resolve this?