Or what your definition of "unconstitutional" is.
A GREAT article in the WSJ today about how the NSA wiretapping issue has exposed the fault lines within the Republican party between traditional limited government conservatives and interventionist neoconservatives.
On the one side you've got the Rudmans, Specters and Snowes calling Bush's actions a presidential overreach that endangers balanced government. Even Bob Freakin' Barr, that former MOC loonacious loon from Georgia called it "an egregious violation" of the electronic surveillance laws. Then you've got your Trent Lotts and Bill Kristols doing their "Yes man" shuckin' and jivin' to the tune of Hail to the Chief.
The article's final point, which is a good one, is that the line between the two positions goes straight through Iraq: Those who thought it a good idea to go to Iraq support the NSA wiretapping; those you didn't/don't, think it's unjustified and unbecoming a conservative President.
Although Bush has never claimed to be conservative. He's always declared that he's a "compassionate conservative," which means of course that he "loves the sinner and hates the sin," or in this case, he loves the Constitution but hates that it applies to him.