The point is that the case law overwhelming supports the President. If it does Art, I've yet to hear about any of it. You've cited case law which supports an inherent authority for the president in the absence of clear statutory guidence. Can you provide case law that has upheld the power of the president to ignore an act of Congress? From your last sentence it appears you are familiar with Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer, and I presume you are aware of how that case was decided.
Here is a relevant section from the majority opinion (my emphasis added)
"Nor can the seizure order be sustained because of the several constitutional provisions that grant executive power to the President.
In the framework of our Constitution, the President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad. And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make laws which the President is to execute. The
[343 U.S. 579, 588] [/url] first section of the first article says that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . . ." After granting many powers to the Congress, Article I goes on to provide that Congress may "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
The President's order does not direct that a congressional policy be executed in a manner prescribed by Congress - it directs that a presidential policy be executed in a manner prescribed by the President. The preamble of the order itself, like that of many statutes, sets out reasons why the President believes certain policies should be adopted, proclaims these policies as rules of conduct to be followed, and again, like a statute, authorizes a government official to promulgate additional rules and regulations consistent with the policy proclaimed and needed to carry that policy into execution. The power of Congress to adopt such public policies as those proclaimed by the order is beyond question. It can authorize the taking of private property for public use. It can make laws regulating the relationships between employers and employees, prescribing rules designed to settle labor disputes, and fixing wages and working conditions in certain fields of our economy. The Constitution does not subject this lawmaking power of Congress to presidential or military supervision or control. "
And since Jacksons concurring opinion keeps coming up, let's look at the actual quote:
"3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter.
Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling [343 U.S. 579, 638] [/url] the Congress from acting upon the subject.
4 Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system. "
If the Court were to allow Bush to wiretap American citizens without warrants, it would necessarily have to declare FISA unconsititutional according to this logic.
_______________________________________________