More on Bush's Surveillance Authority

This is a pretty good summary of why the dems challenge of the Bush on surveillance is not only wrong, but politically a loser. Read it here.

Here's the key phrase in S.J. Res 23 authorizing the use of force:

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States:

If the Constitution allows for the President to "take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States", then that ends all debate. Legislation can't take away the inherent powers that the Constitution grants the President as Commander-in-Chief. After all, the Fourth Amendment doesn't say the President needs a warrant for these wiretaps since this is defined as a reasonable search and seizure. The Fourth Amendment only requires a warrant for UNREASONABLE searches.

Why would they include that provision in the AUMF (Authorization to Use Military Force) if they didn't believe that the President had the inherent power to protect us through reasonable searches and seizures?

What makes Teddy's mindless diatribe that much more foolish is the consistency in the polling showing the American people think that the President is doing the right thing with these wiretaps AND they think that, if he doesn't have the authority, he should. Teddy's diatribe is the political equivalent of playing a game of chicken with a road grader. We know the outcome if it's allowed to proceed to its logical conclusion.

If this is where their political instincts are taking them, then it's a wonder they have any seats in Congress.