Mark Levin over at The Corner has commented on some of these, and the good folks at RealClearPolitics have linked to them (and a lot more), but if you need to catch up on the state of the argument over President Bush’s NSA surveillance authorizations, herewith some pointers. The redoubtable David Rivkin and Lee Casey had a very good piece in yesterday’s New York Times, as did Tod Lindberg in yesterday’s Washington Times.
Today’s Washington Times treats readers to a contrast between the sober, judicious Michael Barone and the delirious and hysterical Bruce Fein, who seems determined to top his own bad reasoning of last week by calling for Congress to “undertake a national inquest” on whether the president has committed “impeachable usurpations.” Fein might want to reconsider whether he really wishes to join the Barbara Boxer Rebellion.
Meanwhile, legal scholar Robert F. Turner has the right approach at today’s Wall Street Journal, asking the question whether the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is not itself, in important respects, an unconstitutional infringement of presidential power. I’m also glad to see that, as I did last week, Turner considers the Congress’s Authorization to Use Military Force of September 18, 2001 the constitutional “equivalent of a formal declaration of war.”