McCarthy 1, Will 0

I've long admired George Will, as has PaMonk. But Will did two things in his column yesterday ripping the Administration for its NSA surveillance that he normally does not: (1) he let his emotions have free reign -- an uncharacteristic display from the most Spockian (Star Trek Spock) columnist on the Right; (2) he flat out misrepresented a legal precedent -- the Steel Seizure Cases -- by claiming that the Supreme Court had determined "presidential authority is weakest when it clashes with Congress." Will is wrong, only Justice Jackson's concurring opinion (see here for the case and scroll down) promulgated that view. That view ignores the express delineation of presidential power in Article II of the Constitution and the President's primacy in areas of war, foreign policy and military command.

Will is right that the Administration's technical arguments are not strong, nor have they been stated in a convincing manner. Andy McCarthy disagrees.

Instead, the President should assert his constitutional authority as the head of state, the commander in chief and the director of the US foreign policy.

Andy McCarthy tears Will's argument up in the column linked in the title of this post. Here is the crux of McCarthy's argument:

. . . for all Will's bombast about the Constitution's plain language and structure, it is difficult to imagine anything that would have been more startling to those who crafted our fundamental law than the suggestion that the president of the United States needs a federal judge's permission to intercept the international communications of a wartime enemy that seeks, above all else, to mount a massive attack against the homeland.