You weren't making a generic separation of powers argument, you were referring to the specific case of spying laws: "How much permission from Congress (and oversight by Congress) does the President need to authorize varying degrees of spying?"
I say he needs all permission in the world if congress tells him he can't do it. You seem to know of some constitutional spying power that would allow him to ignore congress. Please inform me what this constitutional clause is.
He's not saying anything like that. You keep doing this: someone makes a technical point about how the Constitution works, and you ask them why they haven't stopped beating their wife yet. Could you please engage with the actual issue?
Again: what do you think happens if Congress passes a bill requiring the President to fire his Secretary of State?
I'm really at a loss, I don't understand why we keep talking past each other. I'm willing to accept that I'm misunderstanding something here but I don't see it.
Yes, congress cannot impinge on the President's constitutional powers, can't force him to fire his Secretary of State. But spying is not a constitutional power, unless you accept the AUMF war-time Commander in Chief argument. Which is what set off my John Yoo detector.
Huh? Where in the Constitution is Congress given authority over "spying"? At all times, not just when authorized to use military force, the executive branch controls the military and governs foreign affairs. Your comment makes no sense.
I say he needs all permission in the world if congress tells him he can't do it. You seem to know of some constitutional spying power that would allow him to ignore congress. Please inform me what this constitutional clause is.