Sometimes, it is hard not to scream. I mentioned in my "idiot" post that various panel discussions concerning legal matters have been on C-SPAN lately, including those with John Yoo. And, this guy is getting a lot of exposure, as shown by a debate of sorts in which he faced Peter Irons (liberal law professor) ... Irons is an older gentleman and probably a peaceful sort, explaining why he did not punch Yoo is the nose for promoting executive monarchy. Yoo was on a panel of international law and was again on in a solo performance for the Heritage Foundation, introduced by Edward Meese. He was in other words with friends, suggesting why Yoo was able to put forth loads of B.S. without response.
I caught only a piece of the thing, but it was enough for me. Yoo argued that there were various limits to the President's claims of national warrant tap power, all meaning little or nothing in practice. The courts can use the exclusionary rule to keep any information obtained from being used. The administration does not really believe in trials, so this rarely will even be a possibility, and does not cover the concerns of ordinary citizens that they are being targeted.
Anyway, along with the possibility that Congress can remove funding, how likely is this to occur in practice? As to the funding issue: an illegal and unconstitutional policy can only be stopped via not only more legislation (difficult) but veto proof at that (fear of veto, and so forth, will result in some half-assed solution). Finally, there are the so-called Bivens suits, civil damages. But, the whole thing is secret -- people don't know they are being targeted, which is partly the whole point of secret FISA points. So, how can they sue? Executive secrecy has been upheld repeated, even if in the process civil lawsuits cannot be carried forth.
Yoo, maybe this is projecting, seems to be an unpleasant character. As with Alberto Gonzalez, he appears to be a quite smart cookie, who has used his knowledge to be a lackey and promoter of injustice. Also, he comes off as a bit of an asshole. Finally, I read a piece of his in which he feared that current law has developed to give Congress too much power, the Necessary and Proper Clause in particular run riot. But, one man via vague and if anything originally understood limited phrase, well nothing to see here. He needs MORE power. Intellectually bankrupt ... should be nominated for a judgeship sometime soon.
Meanwhile, here's an essay more up my alley.