This is true, but there would still be a huge contradiction in the law if the FISA courts ignore the Second Circuit. You'd have the FISA courts saying "Bulk surveillance is authorized under the USA Freedom Act for six months in the entire United States" versus the Second Circuit saying "Bulk surveillance is unconstitutional and any law authorizing it within the jurisdiction of the Second Circuit is void for that reason."

My guess is, if the FISA courts ignore the Second Circuit there will be a Supreme Court case on this, as tends to happen when you have conflicting authority at the appeals court level.

I wish i had mod points. That is a damned insightful observation. But don't do it again ... you just ruined STIV:TVH for me., !

Came here to say just this. The HOT lanes in VA were allegedly going to get some of these thermal cameras to catch HOV cheaters, but AFAIK they aren't installed yet (too expensive). Since you have to use an EZPass on those lanes anyway, I'm not concerned about them being able to count occupants - they already know when you're on the road. Also, GP:

google "SLUG" - tons of people pick up strangers everyday near the HOV lanes in VA. Drivers get to work quicker, slugs get a free ride and don't have to pay for parking in DC - win-win.

Careful what you wish for, the flip side of war being declared is that all the war-time powers of the president, FEMA etc. are invoked. If you don't want that to happen, you have to somehow define it as non-war military action and then it wouldn't be in violation of the Constitution, you can't have it both ways. And the amendment says only Congress can declare war, but the President is commander-in-chief of the military and there's really nowhere that explicitly states he can't commit acts of war without approval by Congress. It seems implied, but technicalities might matter.

By the way, if you're arguing the person at the top is violating the law then that naturally flows down the chain of command and as we learned in the post-WWII trials, following orders is no excuse. So if the President should go on trial for violating the constitution, the soldier shooting should go on trial for manslaughter. Possibly even murder, because you clearly meant to kill and that you happened to kill a few that weren't the target is like an assassin's collateral. I doubt that goes under manslaughter, really.

Ron Paul for example suggested that we could not and recommended we use letters of marque instead. (which while still allowed are considered antique and haven't be actually used in a long time) In the US

And the only supreme court case to challenge the handler claiming the dog hit repeatedly on the same person when no drugs were found the court promptly through out the challenge with no question of the dog/handler combination.

The conservative side of the court likes to let law enforcement do whatever they want. Scalia in particular bends over backwards to rule in favor of jack booted thuggery at every opportunity.

I know this is going to be unreasonable, but answer this one. Where in the constitution does it give the federal government the power to ban substances?

You did remember that the constitution doesn't specify rights, but instead grants powers to the government, right?

That was incentivization, not restrictive action.