[brown9-2]

There will be no consequences because Congress is behind this program, it is legal, and whether or not this testimony was a "lie" depends upon very specific definitions of terms like "intercept".

Most of us might hate that the government has this power but that does not make it extra-legal.

[bmelton]

"Allowed by law", "legal" and "constitutional" are all entirely separate terms.

Without trying to confuse the issue too much, Congress could pass a law that makes slavery legal again, which is to say, that it is allowed by law. The flip side to that though, is that the Constitution would prohibit such an action.

That is clearly of little comfort in the meantime, but it does mean that law enforcement officers are not necessarily bound to enforce the law, courts are not necessarily bound to uphold it, and it likely has a good chance of being overturned by the Supreme Court (if not before).

American Jurisprudence has this to say on the matter:

    It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law to be 
    valid, one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
    The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having 
    the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, 
    and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from 
    the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the 
    decision so branding it an unconstitutional law.

    In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never 
    been passed...

    Since an unconstitutional law is void the general principles follow;
    that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows 
    no power of authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no 
    acts performed under it.

    A void law cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An 
    unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

    Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the 
    land, it is superseded thereby.

    No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no court is bound to 
    enforce it.

(16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)

[dragonwriter]

Interestingly, your own extended quote from American Jurisprudence contradicts your thesis, and clearly lays out why "legal" and "constitutional" are not separate terms, as a purported law that contravenes the Constitution, "though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law" and "is as inoperative as if it had never been passed". Therefore, while Congress could pass something that pretended to be a law which violated the Constitution, by doing so it would make "in reality no law", and whatever was purported to be made legal by that law would not be legal.

To be legal, under US law, an act must necessarily be Constitutional as well; an unconstitutional act is, ipso facto, illegal.

[bmelton]

Too true. I was trying to differentiate the difference between Congress' "legalization" of something, and its actual legality and, in the process, failed miserably.

Thanks for the correction.

[rayiner]

"Legal" usually implies Constitutional. Collecting metadata is quite probably legal in both senses of the term.

[mtgx]

Yes, at best, we could hope for a resignation and replacement. Forget about any real "punishment". It just won't happen. The whole government was behind this, including the White House and Congress.

Still, a resignation might give us some hope that at the very least the recognize how outraged this makes use, and they'll try to do better in the future. If they don't do that, then that's just defiance against the American people and against the Constitution.