You are quoting dicta, as your own blog commenters pointed out. (And you ignored) And you are not quoting it correctly at that.

You say that the "question is open" but until struck down the law is the law. FISA says it is the exclusive means to perform the domestic(key word)surveillance it covers.

That's how it works. Laws are laws. Clinton may have said that he could ignore FISA laws but he never argued that in court. Similarly Bush has never made that argument in court either, only in press releases. If the Bush administration thinks that FISA is unconstitutional it could argue that in court - it hasn't.

The key point you are missing here is that the President has the power to perform surveillance but "the people" have the right to be free from warrantless, unreasonable search.

When the court (that you quoted) says that the President has the power to perform surveillance and that FISA "amplifies" that power the meaning is that FISA amplifies that power by providing domestic surveillance methods in a way that at least approach a traditional warrant and are therefore constitutional. The implication is that approaching a traditional warrant is the lowest possible bar, and any lower is unconstitutional due to what we call the "Bill of Rights."

If you truly feel that FISA is an unconstitutional restriction on the President argue it in court.  It's been around for decades and hasn't been struck down or even really challenged. Curious.