No checks and balances here... at least any that aren't classified and are transparent to the public. A Tyranny, as Thomas Jefferson might refer to it.
Checks and balances are functioning perfectly. Congress voted for Patriot Act §215, President Bush signed it into law, President Obama and his congress reauthorized it, and the courts did not overturn it. The law has sat on the books, very publicly, for more than a decade, and has offered myriad opportunities for citizens to debate and challenge (an example: [1]). The broader issue of NSA dragnets is probably one of the top 20 political issues in the US, making regular headlines since 2005 (if you include foreign dragnets, 1995 [2] or earlier).
Checks and balances aren't broken. This is democracy in action.
If the checks and balances were functioning, we wouldn't have senators warning in 2011 of the Obama administration's "secret interpretation" of the Patriot Act:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20067005-281.html
Unfortunately the senators were on the Intelligence committee and viewed themselves as unable to disclose what they learned in secret briefings. Now we know at least part of what they were talking about.
"viewed themselves as unable to disclose what they learned in secret briefings"
That is because it is illegal to disclose classified intelligence, even for a Senator.
The reason why these Senators could only warn about things, instead of passing legislation to change the law, is because the majority of Congress supports this type of legislation.
The checks and balances are still there - the problem is that the body that passes the law agrees with this type of power.
> the problem is that the body that passes the law agrees with this type of power
You can see that in the initial comments on this leak: among the first official comments were both parties' ranking members on the Senate Intelligence Committee — Dianne Feinstein (D) and Saxby Chambliss (R) — defending the program. It's not a surprise to them or something they want to change.
This is untrue. It is not "illegal" for a senator to disclose classified material. The Constitution's speech and debate clause trumps federal criminal law, meaning he or she could disclose the material on the floor of the Senate or in committee. (Doing so may not be wise, of course, but it would be legal.)
The Supreme Court has ruled on this (Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606) after Senator Mike Gravel read a copy of the classified Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record.
Why do we keep pretending that Thomas Jefferson wanted us to use military force to destroy the Constitution and overthrow democratically elected officials as soon as we were unhappy with politics?
Checks and balances aren't broken. This is democracy in action.
[1] http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-national-security-technology...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Controversy