Syllogism

For anyone who is still unclear on how the Executive Order is unconstitutional, here it is, in plainer English than the White House can use:
1. The White House has made it very clear that the EO gives powers to the AG that he didn't have before. They have made it very clear that the EO changes when the President has to submit what to FISC. That is by their own admission. So, there can be no argument; the EO contradicts the current law. If you still doubt that the EO violates the law, look here. The first paragraph makes it vert clear that the AG has to go to FISC before the tap takes place. The EO says the AG can go to FISC later. Thus, it clearly changes the law.
2. The Supreme Court has ruled at least twice that an executive order cannot violate the law. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the Court invalidated President Truman’s EO 10340, because the order didn’t enforce the law, so much as it rewrote the law. Second, in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, the Court ruled that congress may not give the President the power to make laws. So, it's clear that if the EO violates the law (see #1) then it is illegal.
3. The EO is clearly illegal, as it violates the law.
4. However the Administration has made the argument that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Terrorists allows them to use any means necessary to combat terror. They argue that the EO is justified through the AUMF.
5. The Supreme Court has said otherwise. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the court ruled that the AUMF does not authorize the Administration to do anything that isn't specifically allowed under the AUMF. The AUMF does NOT allow the Administration to alter FISA, or any other surveillance laws for that matter.
6. So, the AUMF clearly doesn't justify the EO, thus the EO is clearly illegal by any standard.

- Michael Soneff