I also agree with the guy in principle, but there are two big problems with how he went about it:
When it comes down to it, this is tantamount to shooting out the back tire of the slowpoke in front of you to make him/her get off the road. Something we all fantasize about, but it's dangerous and illegal and we wouldn't actually do it.
Bah. Congress can prohibit ACTIONS until they're blue in the face, but those prohibitions rely on an executive branch that is willing to enforce them. This executive in particular has a history of declining to enforce laws that it doesn't like. (Yes, Bush did it too with his "signing statements". Two wrongs don't make a right.)
The true power of Congress is the power of the purse. If they don't want the executive doing something, the surest way to prevent it is to deny them the money to do it. This amendment is about the strongest form of prohibition they can make, short of cutting funding for NSA entirely (which would be pretty stupid).
Agreed it doesn't prevent them from doing it anyway with money from other sources, but then that money can't be used for whatever they were planning to do with it before. At least Congress is trying to do something about it.
Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek