Secret law is not law. It is a fundamental breach of the social contract .

[Romulus Quirinus]

49. I assume that you are arguing in good faith. I would appreciate it if you would do the same for me.

In addition, I am not a lawyer, but a scientist. I would not ask you to calibrate my experimental equipment, and I think it is unreasonable to expect me to read the multiple Supreme Court legal opinions in your Google Scholar search, analyze them, and argue with you on equal footing. If you wish for this conversation to be fruitful, it would be helpful to point out a clearer reading, since there is no obvious link supporting your contention on the first page that I can locate with my meagre knowledge. That said...

My Google Fu does not seem to bring up anyone who agrees with your opinion. The first cut brought up the Wikipedia article on the Foriegn Intelligence Service Act, which mentions US vs Duggan:

Post-FISA

There have been very few cases involving the constitutionality of FISA. In two lower court decisions, the courts found FISA constitutional. In the United States v. Duggan, the defendants were members of the Irish Republican Army. 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir., 1984). They were convicted for various violations regarding the shipment of explosives and firearms. The court held that there were compelling considerations of national security in the distinction between the treatment of U.S. citizens and non-resident aliens.

IF this crime/case happened after FISA was passed, I don't see what bearing it has on what the law would revert to if FISA were removed from play. Further, the law blog you link to is simply a reposting of a memo from the office of the Director of National Intelligence, one Mr. Clapper, who has been in the news lately, and whose opinion I find to be self-serving and not a little suspect. The block quote you include is found no where on the site you linked.

Tossing the first line of your block quote into a search engine leads to this Brietbart link (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/27/NSA-Scandal-Stay-Focused) which agrees with your analysis. The quote itself comes from an amicus curiae brief filed with the Court by Judicial Watch in in American Civil Liberties Union vs National Security Agency in 2006. Judicial Watch, it has often been noted, does not commonly cover itself in glory. :3

Lacking as I am in legal training, and being capable only of reading the plain meaning of the 4th amendment and the simplified explanations of other experts, and based on the quality of said experts standing on either side, I would say that I'm still inclined to disagree with you on this point. I do think, however, that this post might make for a fine OP.