I don't claim to be a constitutional scholar, far far from it, but I have read it, and I do know a little American history.

If I understand things correctly, the founders were very concerned that no American president could have anything like the (almost) unlimited powers of a King (read dictator).

To that end they came up with the separation of power between the various branches of government. Again, this was done to limit the powers of the president, and if I read the constitution correctly, with the exception of his/her war powers, the powers of the president were quite limited indeed. Bush may have extraordinary power to wage war, but in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention Somalia), there has been no declaration of war by Congress. So even if he has extraordinary powers in the event of war, there seems to be no legal war.

Since those heady days of the tea party, there seems to have been a more or less steady increase in the power of the president, till we get where we are today, with Bush just "deciding" to do pretty much whatever he wants. To me this sounds like a dictator.

Those with a better understanding than I can argue the finer points, but it seems to me to be quite simple in the end. The founders in no ways would have countenanced the power, almost unlimited, that Bush has, and soon enough, Obama or g_d forbid, McCain, will have.

Is this power "dictatorial" or "near dictatorial"? I think so. Therefore, given one of the ideals that your nation was founded on, i.e. no more Kings, I can only conclude that Bush is at least a near dictator and this is clearly not what was intended by those very wise men who wrote your constitution.

Do you mean this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rudolphdvd.jpg

Looks like McSame although considerably less abominable! LOL

And on becoming "part of North America".. and "reaching a population of 1 million", and of course for "finishing the chunnel to China".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seYUbVa7L7w

From a popular Canada TV show. Yes, we have TV. It's been over 3 years now, but it's still only in Toronto.

For the record we never had a PM named Poutine, that's French fries with gravy and cheese curds. If you ever come to Canada, don't try it.

4 in 10 Americans support annexing Canada: Poll

Updated Mon. Oct. 14 2002 1:01 PM ET

Canadian Press

MONTREAL -- Should Canada become the 51st American state? Four out of 10 Americans answered "sure" in a recent poll conducted by Leger Marketing of Montreal.

While 38 per cent of respondents said they would be "in favour of Canada being annexed to the United States," 49 per cent disagreed. Another 13 per cent said they did not know or refused to answer.

Of course this not particularly stupid given that Canada has the 2nd largest proven oil reserves in the world. But how many Americans would know that?

And don't miss this little gem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp4iI59BfpQ

It's not just women who have been ignored. It's all Americans. Two stolen elections, and war that no one, neither Dem or Republican, cares to end.

...on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion, ABC’s Good Morning America aired an interview with Vice President Cheney on the war. During the segment, Cheney flatly told White House correspondent Martha Raddatz that he doesn’t care about the American public’s views on the war:

CHENEY: On the security front, I think there’s a general consensus that we’ve made major progress, that the surge has worked. That’s been a major success.

RADDATZ: Two-third of Americans say it’s not worth fighting.

CHENEY: So?

RADDATZ So? You don’t care what the American people think?

CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.

And if polls are any good at all, Hilary did not lose because she is a woman. She was the frontrunner, the nominee, a shoo in, how soon you forget Joan. Where was the sexism then? Or is sexism seasonal or something?

"His suggestion that the voters are smart enough flies in the face of the facts. Smart voters never would have fallen for the dropped hint that Saddam was behind 9-11. The reviewer claims people eventually wised up. Yes. And in the meantime tens of thousands of people died."

What? If by "tens of thousands" you mean 600,000 to 1.2 million, then you are correct. If you meant the 30,000 or so figure give by the war criminal in chief, then are completely and utterly wrong.

The number of civilian "extra deaths" in Iraq is of critical importance to the debate. I don't want to say that you are "stupid", clearly you are not. But what hope is there for the electorate, when even the cognoscenti get it so very very badly wrong?

Having said this, I can see how you got your numbers wrong in a country that continually talks about American casualties in Iraq and somehow fails to mention the number of Iraqis killed.

There is a solution to America invading countries for little or no legitimate or legal reason. Simply pass a constitutional amendment that states: "America shall not invade any country whose name the majority of Americans cannot pronounce correctly."

Hint, it not pronounced, Eyerack. http://www.answers.com/iraq&r=67

This will save you a lot of trouble with Eyeran as well.