U.S. v. Truong
a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

"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."

The President's authority has been established and upheld in court before.

>Unfortunately, referencing editorials in opinion journal does not make it irrelevant. Plus the piece you note - conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information - touches on foreign surviellance and i believe we have several examples by the administration where domestic surviellance is going on.

From FISA 1978
"[T]he term “foreign intelligence information,” especially as defined in subparagraphs (e)(1)(B) and (e)(1)(C), can include evidence of certain crimes relating to sabotage, international terrorism, or clandestine intelligence activities. With respect to information concerning U.S. persons, foreign intelligence information includes information necessary to protect against clandestine intelligence activities of foreign powers or their agents. Information about a spy’s espionage activities obviously is within this definition, and it is most likely at the same time evidence of criminal activities." H.R. REP. NO. 95-1283 (hereinafter “H. REP.”) at 49 (1978) (emphasis added).

This appears to cover domestic as well if involved in "clandestine intelligence activities of foreign powers or their agents". This was originally debated before FISA was passed.

I too am a lay person trying to understand these legal issues, but from what I've read, this entire "illegal wiretaps" fiasco is yet another red herring.
The courts will once again have to decide.

>From my layman read of the case you site, it sounds like they are reversing the imposed conditions on that particular case, not reversing the FISA Act Of 1978.

>Although I believe the OpinJournal piece is simply trying to intentionally mislead the reader into thinking that the Decider doesnt have to adhere to FISA.

The editorial is making a case for the preservation of a particular executive power without applying it to any particular inhabitant of the White House.

>From the case you site:
>
>The FISA court authorized the surveillance, but imposed certain restrictions, which the government contends are neither mandated nor authorized by FISA.
>
>We reverse the FISA court’s orders in this case to the extent they imposed conditions on the grant of the government’s applications
>
>From the FISA act:
>
>(3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 1803 (a) of this title a copy of his certification.
>
>And there in lies the problem. No notification.
>

"Far from being "secret," key Members of Congress were informed about them at least 12 times, President Bush said yesterday. The two district court judges who have presided over the FISA court since 9/11 also knew about them."

Notice was clearly given, whether it was legally required of the CIC during a time of war or not.

>>>This granting retroactive amnesty in order to provide a legal foundation for the surveillance program is a wee bit different than modifying tax law. And if there is a need to 'provide legal foundation', a reasonable person could assume that the current surveillance program is without legal foundation (outside the guidelines established by FISA).
>>
>>Any further legislation appears to be irrelevant in lieu of existing CIC authority.
>>
>>"The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President's power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it. FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed.
>>The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "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."
>>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703
>>
>>Sealed Case No. 02-001 http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html
>>
>>>>Unfortunately, retroactive legislation is not a new concept, regardless of political party...
>>>>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/HL613.cfm
>>>>http://www.ftb.ca.gov/businesses/credits/rd/spidell/spidell6.html
>>>>
>>>>or country for that matter...
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_legislation
>>>>
>>>>>Surprised? And that's coming from the guys who hate the word "amnesty".
>>>>>
>>>>>"Have you forgotten doublespeak, Winston?"
>>>>>
>>>>>>Retroactively legislate?????
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No worries. With guys like Specter and DeWine on the case, the GOP can retroactively legislate any and all get out of jail free cards needed for both past and future shennanigans. Its good to be king.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>After an exchange of letters in June 2006 between Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Vice President Dick Cheney, the committee is considering Specter's bill putting the NSA program under the FISA court and granting retroactive amnesty for warantless surveillance conducted under presidential authority.[3] It is also considering legislation sponsored by Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH), a member of the judiciary and intelligence panels, that would provide a legal foundation for the surveillance program.