> I am getting my info from here and it is at odds with what you are saying. What are the federal appeals courts rulings on it?

United States v. Clay, 430 F.2nd 165 (5th Cir., 1970), this was reversed on other grounds, but is important because the relevant part of the holding was the basis for the holding regarding foreign intelligence surveillance in the following case, referring to warrantless wiretaps authorized by the Attorney-General on behalf of the President: "No one would seriously doubt in this time of serious international insecurity and peril that there is an imperative necessity for obtaining foreign intelligence information, and we do not believe such gathering is forbidden by the Constitution or by statutory provision"

United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d. 418 (5th Cir., 1973).

United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir., 1974) explicitly found that the Fourth Amendment did apply, but warrants were not required for reasonableness of foreign intelligence surveillance, as: "Certainly occasions arise when officers, acting under the President's authority, are seeking foreign intelligence information, where exigent circumstances would excuse a warrant. To demand that such officers be so sensitive to the nuances of complex situations that they must interrupt their activites and rush to the nearest available magistrate to seek a warrant would seriously fetter the Executive in the performance of his foreign affairs duties."

Thank you kindly, that clears it up. I think then the Supreme Court could define 'reasonableness' in a different manner than currently interpreted, but then I don't know much about how that would come about.