> I sincerely hope that the laws will get struck down, but I also fear that the classified nature of many things that touch this will lead the courts to say that we can't show we have standing, and therefore decline to rule on the constitutionality.

So, the Supreme Court will let claims of 'secrecy'
trash the Constitution? I don't think so! The
court should be able to find some ways around
such claims of 'secrecy'! Telling those
nine justices that they can't get 'secret'
details promises not to
'play well'! The NSA is worried about tracking
some loser, wacko, nutjob Jihader from
Somalia, and the Supreme Court is worried
about saving the US Constitution -- hmm ...!

> More importantly, what matters is NOT just what the laws say, but whether the government follows them!

If the executive branch is violating a law, bring a legal
case. While this answer is simplistic,
and usually is not an easy path, it is basically
the way the process works. But such a case has
to be brought and decided only once -- after
that any judge can say that the issue has
already been decided.
While the process is not always
easy, in important cases it tends to get followed. E.g., if
the FBI goes to Google and says "gimme", Google can
reply "see you in court". "Double secret probation" worked
in the movie 'Animal House' but won't last long before the
Supreme Court.

> What the King Does Is Legal

Not really true, but there is a lot of 'latitude'. And
there can be a 'time window' until legal cases are brought.
But the President is Commander in Chief so can tell
the military to take that town. If the town is in the
US, then there is a law about that. If the town is
in another country, then the president should have
some 'war powers', but the way it usually works in
practice is that the president asks Congress for
an authorizing vote. Then of course the president
needs Congress to vote the money for the military
action. And Congress can also pass a law that
says that no money will be used to take the
town in question -- in which case for the money
the president has to run a bake sale, sell some
arms and call up Colonel North, or some such. If the vote is 2/3rds in both
houses, then it overrides any presidential veto
and stands. So far the pushing and shoving
from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue have not
gone beyond such things. E.g., in effect for
Gulf War II, Congress voted some 'authorization'
(I'm no expert with details), did vote the money,
lots of money, often, and didn't vote "no
money will be spent in Iraq" or any such thing.
W didn't do Gulf War II by himself and, instead,
had a lot of help from Congress; it wasn't
all W's fault. Cheney's "There's no doubt that Saddam
has WMD."? Well, if count chembio weapons, that
was true. Why? Because we still had the receipts
from when we shipped those materials to him
when he was fighting Iran. I was 100% against
Gulf War II, but it wasn't all W's fault;
he had a lot of help, enough that at least
the spirit of the Constitution was followed.

It's simple: Nearly all the power is in
Congress, if they can get a sufficient
majority to use it. But if Congress goes
beyond the Constitution, then they can get
slapped down by Supreme Court just across
the street. We had some darned smart
founding fathers: They were working to
give up a lot of the power of the separate states
to a central government and were darned
careful about doing so.

Gitmo is a legal mess: (1) It's not in the US,
deliberately so. (2) It's supposedly about
what we are now calling 'prisoners of war'.
Somehow a lot of people want to regard the
prisoners in Gitmo as having the right to
access the US legal system, but that's
not so clear, and, indeed, how the US
military handles 'justice' on the in times
of 'war', or whatever we are calling the
fight against Al Qaeda, etc., has long
or always been a long way from the US
domestic criminal legal system. E.g., the
stories go that in Viet Nam, the US had
four prisoners and wanted them to talk but
they didn't want to talk. So, all four
prisoners got a helicopter ride. From
maybe 2000 feet up, the prisoners were
asked one last time to talk. When they
didn't, one prisoner went outside for
a 'walk', from 2000 feet up. The story
is that then usually the other three
prisoners were willing to talk. The
Geneva Convention may have something to
say about such tactics, but I don't recall
if the Geneva Convention applied in
Viet Nam. Maybe Senator McCain
(whom I rarely agree with -- he
didn't actually sink a US aircraft
carrier although he came close) can
give some details on how the Geneva
Convention applied in Viet Nam.
I was very much against the US in
Viet Nam soon after I heard General
Maxwell Taylor speak and asked him
a question and got his answer;
but with the US military actually sent
to Viet Nam, some of the details on
just how they talked to prisoners I
was less concerned about.
Broadly just what the heck the US
military does on battlefields is to
me a bit far from the US Constitution
here inside the US.

> This time around, the fact that it's being done by the NSA with the President's permission allows them to claim that the classified nature of nearly everything at stake here means we should trust them.

They can claim all kinds of stuff. E.g., they
might claim that no kittens or puppies were
harmed by the NSA. Fine. Irrelevant but
fine. Similarly they might claim
"you can trust us -- we love the US and
work hard everyday to protect and defend
the US and honor the laws and the Constitution" --
close to some things they actually said recently and
about as relevant as not harming kittens
and puppies. Instead, as we know well, very
well, all too well, and as I am fully sure
that all nine Supreme Court justices know
with brilliant clarity,

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

Besides, it's not up to General Alexander,
the NSA, or President Obama to determine
what is "constitutional". And it's not
up to Senator Feinstein, etc. either.
As we know well, instead, with a suitable
case brought, the issue is up to the
Supreme Court.

> Getting the laws overturned will be a HUGE first step

Shouldn't be. That's just the way the process is
supposed to work. Congress and the president go
with the excitement of the moment but eventually
a case is brought to the Supreme Court and cooler,
wiser heads prevail. In the meanwhile a General
Alexander is able to say maybe that he loves
America while he tracks mud over the First and
Fourth Amendments.

Have some faith: The Constitution is fairly clear.
The Supreme Court is highly respected. Nearly
everyone in the US understands that the Federal
Government is not supposed to be listening in on
pillow talk, phone sex, steamy e-mails, or
following people around, e.g., via cell phone towers, as they meet for their
romantic engagements, etc. And the government
is not supposed to be getting all that data,
from Verizon, Google, Microsoft, or the
Internet backbone even if the government
does not use it. E.g., an ordinary phone
wiretap takes a court order, and grabbing
all the Internet traffic covers wiretaps,
literally, and more. That no alligator
clips and reel to reel tape recorders
need be used is irrelevant -- grabbing
voice over IP is the same as a wiretap;
grabbing that data for 330 million US
citizens within the US instead of just
some one suspected Mafia thug is
at least 330 million times worse and
not better;
and without a court order, in line with
at least the Fourth Amendment grabbing all that data is just
flatly illegal and unconstitutional.

Net, for the Supreme Court to strike down
the laws that enabled a lot of what
Snowden showed will be an easy slam
dunk from a 10 foot stepladder. Telling
the Supreme Court that they can't
strike down such laws will be
one of the most outrageously funny
jokes ever cracked near DC. Take
that claim and go down the present
list of Supreme Court justices
and guess who will even smile:
Let's see, will Justice Scalia smile?
He never smiles! Justice Ginsberg?
She's so serious she can laugh and
smile and no one believes it's genuine.
Justices Sotomayor and Kagan? They
are both busting their gut everyday
to be sure no one can claim that
they, as women, are not up to the
full seriousness of the Court.

Trust in the founding fathers, the
Supreme Court, and the Constitution.
So far what the NSA did may be roughly
'legal' with current laws;
that may not be the case much longer.