>>And, most importantly, FISC judges do not have power that extends to all cases in law and equity under the Constitution. In fact, the only thing they're empowered to do is authorizing FISA certifications.
The FISA court has limited subject matter jurisdiction but I disagree that limited subject matter jurisdiction is impossible for an article III court.
Article III says explicitly:"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity.." not that every article III court must be empowered to hear an case whatsoever. I contend that this refers to the maximal subject matter that any article III court may consider, not that every article III court must be constitutionally empowered to consider any case that falls under Article III sec 2 requirements.
If this was the case temporary judicial courts convened for a specific purpose would be plainly unconstitutional. I am no aware of no one who considers the Court of International Trade to be an article I court because of its limited jurisdiction. It only hears customs cases by law(28 USC 255). This is exactly analogous to the FISA Court/FISCR in their limited jurisdiction.
EDIT:
See Kevork 634 F.Supp. 1002
"The defendants also contend that FISA violates Article III of the Constitution because the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is not a proper Article III court and because the Act delegates judicial power to the Executive Branch. In addition, the defendants argue that the structure of the FISA court denies its judges their judicial independence, making the Court a rubber stamp. These arguments were raised and rejected in... I also reject these contentions."
The court rejected the argument that the FISA court was not an article III court.
The President appoints Court of International Trade judges, and those appointments are confirmed by the Senate.
I think you and 'DannyBee have made it pretty clear that relying on the idea that the FISC isn't an Article III court is a perilous position, but I continue to be unclear on how FISC possibly could be an Article III court given its structure.
The FISA court has limited subject matter jurisdiction but I disagree that limited subject matter jurisdiction is impossible for an article III court. Article III says explicitly:"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity.." not that every article III court must be empowered to hear an case whatsoever. I contend that this refers to the maximal subject matter that any article III court may consider, not that every article III court must be constitutionally empowered to consider any case that falls under Article III sec 2 requirements.
If this was the case temporary judicial courts convened for a specific purpose would be plainly unconstitutional. I am no aware of no one who considers the Court of International Trade to be an article I court because of its limited jurisdiction. It only hears customs cases by law(28 USC 255). This is exactly analogous to the FISA Court/FISCR in their limited jurisdiction.
EDIT: See Kevork 634 F.Supp. 1002 "The defendants also contend that FISA violates Article III of the Constitution because the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is not a proper Article III court and because the Act delegates judicial power to the Executive Branch. In addition, the defendants argue that the structure of the FISA court denies its judges their judicial independence, making the Court a rubber stamp. These arguments were raised and rejected in... I also reject these contentions."
The court rejected the argument that the FISA court was not an article III court.