3 Yrs to Go said:
And everyone here seems sufficiently qualified in Constitutional law to declare, unequivocally, that the surveillance program is illegal. But the courts have held in previous cases that
"the President [has] inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance."
If one end of the conversation is a suspected international terrorist, does this fall under "foreign intelligence surveillance?" The Supreme Court will decide.
Eh? That statement was in relation to the Truong case, which was decided in 1980:
"We reiterate that Truong dealt with a pre-FISA surveillance based on the President’s constitutional responsibility to conduct the foreign affairs of the United States. 629 F.2d at 914."
The Truong case had nothing to do with FISA:
"[A]nother judge in the same district had held that the Truong analysis did not govern FISA cases, since a FISA order was a warrant that met Fourth Amendment standards. United States v. Falvey"
This Review was to decide:
"The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a
49 mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the
government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable."
The FISA Court had restricted a warrant request. The government appealed to the FISC Court of Review. The government was arguing that FISA searches are sufficient to meet 4th amendment requirements.
"The government, recognizing the Fourth Amendment’s shadow effect on the FISA court’s opinion, has affirmatively argued that FISA is constitutional."
The Review in no way invalidates the FISA.
The question remains: Why is the White House ignoring FISA requirements?
Indeed, the Supremes will decide.