Yes, the point of the article is that there are very few if any checks and balances. If you support anything but paying lip service to checks and balances then

Yes, the point of the article is that there are very few if any checks and balances. If you support anything but paying lip service to checks and balances then you would support restricting US government's surveillance powers and requiring a warrant in many more instances than it is required today (almost never when it comes to the NSA, and now the FBI and other agencies can warrantless look at your data before going to court, too, thanks to the latest FISA extension).