"The Constitution drew from each, vesting the power to make laws 'in the Congress,' making the president 'commander in chief' of the military, and leaving it to the courts to resolve disputes between the two."
I think the idea that the courts are to resolve disputes between the other two branches of government is simply wrong. If that were there case, why would we think we have 3 co-equal branches of government? Disputes between Congress and the President over national security are political matters that are to be determined, according to the constitution, by political means. Further, as I've read lately about the Supreme Court opinions regarding war powers vis a vis both Congress and the President, it seems to me the Court has most often taken the position I suggest.
He also writes:
"President Bush appears to have permanently carved his place in the debate by acknowledging that since September 11 he has authorized the National Security Agency to electronically spy on people in the United States communicating with suspected terrorist-linked individuals overseas without warrants from a secret court created by a 1978 federal law to oversee such activities."I don't believe the choice of words here presents the circumstances accurately. I don't believe the President authorized the NSA to electronically spy on people in the United States. Instead, I think the President authorized the NSA to spy on suspected enemies of the United States. I think these two statements are very different. Perhaps the present NSA spy flap would have much less traction if statements in the press were more accurately presented? Or, have I missed the evidence that the NSA program was intended to spy on Americans?