Bit of a problem there, since God isn't mentioned in either the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
— Paul Rosenberg

A bit of a quibble here. The "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. I agree completely that "Nature's God" in the founders' parlance is the Deists' deity and not the Judeo-Christian God. But modern religionists seem unable to make this distinction. Indeed they are fond of trotting out the quotation from Jefferson (engraved in his Memorial in Washington, if I remember correctly) to the effect that "I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" as proof that Jefferson was a Bible-thumping Christian. What they invariably fail to realize it that the God he refers to is the Deist deity and the "tyranny over the mind of man" he refers to is organized Christianity. (http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/lit/jeff04.htm)

Christianists also have a hard time coming to grips with the "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary" of 1797, which states in Article 11:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

This treaty was unanimously ratified by Congress in June of 1797, and, in accordance with the Constitution, became the law of the land.

As for the 'Our Lord' noted in the Constitution, Quakers and Jews of the time definitely did and could not agree with any theology which blythely equated 'Our Lord' = 'God' = 'Jesus Christ'. They knew the Hebrew and Latin versions of the Bible well, and those don't support that theological hypothesis.
— SanPasqualCA

That's a bit of rhetorical overkill. The "our Lord" is simply part of a standard date reference: "in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven" is merely a translation of the standard date A.D. (anno domini) 1787. While it is based on the birth (actually the incarnation) of Christ, it was the standard dating system in use in the western world at the time and its use makes a cultural statement, but not a theological one.

arne: I would hope that the legacy is this: That if you're asked a question that has no relevance to a legal procedure, you know enough to tell them to FOAD, or tell them the moon is made of bleu cheese, particularly when the question is of a personal nature and is being used for extrajudicial ends, hijackng the power of the judiciary to embarrass you.

Clinton badly mishandled the situation. What he should have done when questioned about his sexual relations with a woman was to do the gallant southerner routine: First, pull himself up straight and say in his best southern accent "Suh, where I come from a gentleman doesn't answer a question like that." And then, leaning forward slightly and dropping his voice a notch, say "And suh, where I come from a gentleman doesn't ask a question like that." Think how many millions in taxpayer dollars it would have saved.

arne: WTF does Moussaoui's laptop have to do with FISA?!?!?

I'm surprised that you don't know this. FISA is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It is designed to facilitate the collection of foreign intelligence. FISA warrants for search and surveillance are much easier to get than standard criminal warrants. Indeed, it authorizes warrantless surveillance of persons who are "agents of a foreign power". It also defines anyone engaged in international terrorism as an agent of a foreign power. A normal criminal warrant requires probable cause and a specific description of what is expected to be found by the search, but with the information available about Moussaoui's terrorist connections it would have been dead easy to get a FISA warrant to search the computer. The middle management yahoo who wouldn't apply for the warrant did so on the advice of the FBI's lawyers who clearly did not understand the FISA requirements and did not realize that the criteria for a FISA warrant had been met.

Recess appointments

These are an anachronism at best; legislation should be proposed immediately to get rid of them.

It can't be done with legislation; it will take a constitutional amendment:

Article II, Section 2.3. The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

No doubt it is an anachronism, based on a slower moving world, but it can't be changed by legislation. So be prepared to find out the day after Congress recesses that Gonzales has resigned and John Yoo has been appointed Attorney General.

arne: If "session" is defined as the term of the currently elected Congress, then "next session" would be at the end of the next elected Congress's term (the "current session" would describe the one with those currently elected to Congress). Maybe a better read of "session" is when they reconvene from recess until they recess again or adjourn, giving them a chance to give an "up/down" to any such appointments....

Regardless of the meaning of "session" or "next" or even of "is", the fact remains that this is constitutionally granted authority and cannot be changed by legislation.

Any good "textualist" ought to agree here, and not pretend the words "next" means the full current term of Congress.

See "Recess Appointments: A Legal Overview" (http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/50801.pdf) for textualist interpretations.