That's why you don't even allow presidents you *like* to have such powers. Eventually, they'll leave office and you'll get someone you don't like. They'll take office with all those nifty tools in the shed.
The GOP didn't think that one through with the PATRIOT Act and other "antiterrorism" laws. At the time, the GOP brass painted any objections to such laws as being anti-American. Standard "We would NEVER do such a thing", in other words knowingly lying through their teeth.
Patriot Act, et al was never meant to combat terrorism. It was meant to expand power, or legitimize existing infringements. Most antiterrorism laws are primarily used in drug cases, statistically. While the Patriot Act got the headlines, little known laws such as the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 have actually been the most infringing (in my opinion). The Amendments Act of 2008 granted full immunity to telecoms for illegal wiretapping. Title I, Section 101, paragraph (h), line 3. "Release from liability.--No cause of action shall lie in any court against any electronic communication service provider for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive issued pursuant to paragraph (1)".
Amazing how ominous one line can be. The state already claims sovereign immunity against all lawsuits except that which it has specifically allowed (primarily under Federal Tort Claims Act) or the US govt has consented to being sued. So, unless the USG has specifically allowed itself to be sued for something specified, you can't effectively petition the government for a redress of grievances. If the law extents immunity for illegal wiretapping, you can't sue a telecom for implementing said illegal wiretap.
Try to explain the legal aspects, and folks will look at you like you're crazy. Explaining that they have no basis under the Constitution and were essentially made up makes them look at you even funnier. It's like trying to explain legal concept of state secrets privilege was made up in 1953 by SCOTUS because essentially the USG didn't want to give an accident report to the widows of a crashed B-29. The USG fraudulently claimed they could not provide this information due to "secrets". No, I'm not kidding. United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953). The USAF recognized that their own reports mentioned damaging information on the aircraft readiness, and lied that there was some secret mission involved rather than having angry widows asking tough questions.
Short version, there are numerous horrifically bad laws on the books. The age of the law or invented legal precedent are not a valid defense of it still being a horrifically bad idea.
