Don't Like FISA? Then Try C-In-C

Hinderaker makes another point:

Many people seem not to understand that the executive branch is of equal authority with the legislative and judicial branches. The President has Constitutional powers upon which Congress cannot impinge. Thus, if the President has the authority to direct the armed forces to intercept phone calls received by telephones used by terrorists in Afghanistan, as I think he surely does, that authority cannot be taken away by Congressional action. Consequently, while the fine points of FISA and the scope of Congress's authorization of war in Iraq are interesting topics, the legality of the NSA program does not necessarily turn on statutory analysis. If, as I think, the program falls within the President's Constitutional authority as commander in chief, there is nothing that Congress could do about it, even if it tried. Which it hasn't.

Personally, I think that prosecuting a WAR requires that action be taken immediately to disable or neutralize the enemy. The position that Feingold (D-Vainglory and AlQuaeda) has taken is in stark contrast to common sense.

There is also the argument (cited below) from Captain'sQuarters that FISA specifically addresses only LEGAL immigrants who are not here on student visas--thus, the vast majority of people who are terrorist accomplices are simply not protected under FISA.

Sen. Specter (R-Snakes and Abortionists) has 'skepticism' about the President's powers as C-In-C. Since we know that Spectral Specter also has 'skepticism' about pre-born infants being actual human beings, it demonstrates that he is at least consistently skeptical about common sense, too.

Feinie is also consistent. It is a very rare occasion when Feinie votes FOR a military-spending bill.

We could conclude that Feinie is mainlining Coke.