I appreciate your vigilance.

However,

Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution [Presidential oath of office]:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The President is, in my view, duty bound to preserve protect and defend the Constitution above all else… he is *not* duty bound to enforce what he might reasonably deem unconstitutional laws that encroach on the Executive’s Power e.g., FISA, the Boland Amendment.

Does such unenforcement carry political/legal risk? Yes indeed.

But, the American People elect their Presidents to lead and make leadership decisions, while retaining (of course) the power to impeach/remove/prosecute any President or government official should there be the reason/will to do so.

(*Cough* Sandy ‘Burglar’ *Cough, Cough*)… pardon me. ;- )

**

“What Hamilton thought matters not.”

Thank you for your opinion.

Has the GWOT been decided???

One weird element regarding this conflict is the fact that there would be no signing ceremony aboard a battleship in the enemy’s harbor.

Maybe the Islamofascists have been largely beaten back and it is time to back away from ‘war-time’ measures. How many major threat notifications have we dealt with in the last six months? There was the liquid bombing attempt - but that was interrupted. Maybe the global jihad is a spent force - for at least the time being. There are even reports of Zarqawi’s replacement demanding (ordering) al-Qaeda in Iraq out of Baghdad. Are the Shiite and Sunni thugs really a threat to the American homeland?

What would a decent President - one who had to make tough, grey area, decisions with crappy intel and short time horizons - do when the threat of global jihad is declining?

Maybe soon even President Bush will be talking about the children and health care or other things inane…

Maybe we have ‘won’!!!

Yippeee!!!

Has the GWOT been decided???

One wierd element regarding this conflict is the fact that there would be no signing cerimony aboard a battleship in the enemy’s harbor.

Maybe the Islamofascists have been largely beat back and it is time to back away from ‘war-time’ measures. How many major threat notifications have we dealt with in the last six months? There was the liquid bombing attempt - but that was interrupted. Maybe the global jihad is a spent force - for at least the time being.

What would a decent President - one who had to make tough, grey area, decisions - react like when the threat of global jihad is declining.

Maybe soon even President Bush will be talking about the children and health care or other things innane…

It is the Executive’s constitutional responsibility [duty] to check the powers of the other two branches overreach with such things as the Church Committe & FISA

Bullshit. The president’s job is to faithfully execute his office and to enforce the laws - not to wirte puerile signing statements that claim he is not subject to the laws.

The Framers had full knowledge of the struggle between the Executive (monarchy) and Legislative (Parliament) in England during the 17th century. Indeed, Charles I made claims very similar to those advanced by Addington, Yoo and Gonzales - and parroted by Bush, to whit: the claim to rule by Divine Right and the claim that The King Can Do No Wrong - both positions having been articulated by Bush.

In 1649, Parliament settled this argument once and for all by separating Charles Stuart’s head from his shoulders.

It is ridiculous to propose that having recently dethroned a monarch - the Framers were in any hurry to set another atop a throne. This is why the Legislature has primacy among the three branches of government. The Congress may remove a president. The president has no such reciprocal powers.

What Hamilton thought matters not. As Justice Kennedy put it so succintly at his keynote address to the ABA in August:

The rule of law is binding upon the government and all of its officials

.

This means you, Mr . President.

Is this guy like the greatest satirist since Johnathan Swift, or is he really the friggin’ stupidest man alive

While I wouldn’t call him the greatest satirist since Johnathan Swift, I definitely took those remarks as satire. His comments were too perfectly stupid to be real.

there is no doubt that executive power had been curtailed drastically in the 25 years since Watergate – and not always to the advantage of the government or the country

That may be true, but I can’t think of a single instance where the country has suffered by limiting executive power. For me, Watergate showed what happens when the president believes he is above the law, and all the legislation that has followed to prevent that from occurring again has been in the interest of maintaining the republic and prevent it from turning into a dictatorship. (Even with this clear and benevolent intent, presidents have still fought tooth and nail for their own slice of dictatorship.)

Again, show me the other side of this. How is curtailing executive power ever been a bad thing?

“[T]here is no doubt that executive power had been curtailed drastically in the 25 years since Watergate – and not always to the advantage of the government or the country.”

Agreed.

It is the Executive’s constitutional responsibility [duty] to check the powers of the other two branches overreach with such things as the Church Committe & FISA?

**

[T]he struggle between Hamilton and Jefferson was not between bad and good, vice and virtue, or darkness and light, but between responsibility and vigilance, two virtues necessary to sustain republican government…

“In the current debate over presidential powers in the war on terror, Hamilton would come down on the side of those who argue that Congress can pass no law that restricts the president’s inherent constitutional power. He would also reject the idea that a judge has the authority to render the president — the constitutional officer responsible for security — powerless.

But even good institutions are not always enough to ensure safety. Leaders must also possess the will and courage to use them when they believe the situation requires it…” — Mackubin Thomas Owens
Jan. 13, 2006

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/owens/owens200601131053.asp

Freedum isnt free. The price of liburty is constant survaylance. Besides, what do you have to hide? If your not a terorest you will be fine, otherwise we get rid of you in some camp where you belong! As long as bush fights this war for vistury any and all sacrafises must be made to inshure securitty. Mcain in 08!

Is this guy like the greatest satirist since Johnathan Swift, or is he really the friggin’ stupidest man alive, e.g., “liburty” - “survaylance” - “terorest” -”vistury” - “sacrafises” - “inshure”? I can’t tell - and that “Mcain in 08″ - that’s priceless!!

Still, I would like to know why the Administration has screamed so much in the past about being under FISA - did they seriously believe it would impede gathering information or was it for the reasons other suggested - expanding/returning Presidential powers.