Doesn't that quote say it all? I know you thought so by ending your article with it. Rule by law, laws being proclaimed by the people. Radical stuff. Our laws are being ignored lately? What now?

I follow American politics closely and am continuously astonished to the depths the politicians of the right are prepared to sink. Have they not learned anything from history; i.e. Nero, Caligula, Hitler, Stalin etc. These men had absolute power and the results of Hitler's absolute power should still be remembered. I am German and was born on May 24, 1945. I have lived with our recent history all our lives.

How can the US seriously proclaim to stand for democracy and freedom as long as politicians like Cheney, Bush etc. are in power.

The only solace I find in this is - if at all - that humans are alike - and a tyrant like Hitler could have made his way anywhere, when the US government gets away with breaking international and domestic law despite the fact that everybody can read about. I have only made my peace with Germany about 3 years ago.

The excuse (with very little validity) of my parents generation that they did not know what was going on - is definetely not valid in the US with the communication system - the internet - open press - etc. I am glad to see that there are still people like Mr. Blumenthal who give an objective view.

The notion of absolute executive power may have a long history, but it is not a venerable one.

Our friends at dictionary.com define venerable as " 1. Commanding respect by virtue of age, dignity, character, or position" and "worthy of reverence." This notion is neither.

Like Blumenthal, I am puzzled by the origins of the doctrine of presidential absolutism currently being floated. The opinions of the founders could not be clearer. The president's advocates are conspicuously not citing legal precedent (as they did in the 'enemy combatant' initiative).

But there is a real docrine here, not just an ad hoc talking point or two. Its connection with American law seems to lie in a tortured reading of constitutional clauses which plainly mean the opposite of what is claimed. This suggests a history and a philosophy. So where does it come from?

i've heard not a peep from my respected junior senator, hillary clinton, regarding the deprivations of privacy made by the president knowingly, willfully and intentionally, i.e., criminally. this repudiation of the rule of law surely rises to the same level of anti-americanism that flag burning does-which senator clinton seeks to punish as criminal. please, will someone let me know her views and when she intends to take them public?

It has been stated by supporters of the President (on PBS News Hour 12/21/05), that laws like FISA are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

BRADFORD BERENSON : “Congress's effort to limit the president to warrant-less wiretapping of 15 days after the commencement of hostilities, undoubtedly, in the eyes of the administration is unconstitutional.”

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/fedagencies/july-dec05/nsa_12-21.html

I believe their argument is based on the Supreme Court ruling of United States v. Nixon (1974) {The warrent-less spying started before the HAMDAN CASE (2004) decision}:

In the opinion delivered by CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, President Nixon did not have “Executive Privilege” UNLESS he has a claim to protect “sensitive national security secrets.”

CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER wrote: “Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.

“He [President Nixon] does not place his claim of privilege on the ground they are military or diplomatic secrets. As to these areas of Art. II duties the courts have traditionally shown the utmost deference to Presidential responsibilities.”

by CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER 8-0 majority opinion of United States v. Nixon (1974) with Justice Rehnquist not participating.

Counter to that argument is that the Bill of Rights were written to limit the enumerated powers included in Article II, section 2. The 4th Amendment states: "The right of the people to secure in their persons...against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation..."

Federalist Papers 69, Section 4, written by the framers of the constitution, suggests that the President and the President’s actions are open to review:

"The President of the United States can be impeached, tried, and, on conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office. Afterwards, he would be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.

"The king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable. He is not accountable to any constitutional tribunal. And a national revolution is the only way he can be punished.

"In the delicate and important area of personal responsibility, the President will stand on no better ground than the governor of New York. And he will have more personal liability than the governors of Massachusetts and Delaware."

Publius - Federalist Papers - 69, Sec 4

Beyond the obviously valid points made in the article, Mr. Blumenthal is a pleasure to read. His writing is picturesque and graceful. He gives me a reason to look forward to Thursdays.

Quoting "Common Sense" in this article was appropriate but knowing this Administration as we do, isn't it readily appearant that they have no common sense... (I know, not the same thing but you get the idea.)

Blumenthal,not a lawyer to the best of my knowledge, is wilfully or unintentionally ignorant of the legal arguments made by respectable people supporting Bush's position, e.g., Clinton's former Associate Attorney General, and the law review articles on the at worst uncertainty of presidential constitutional powers, which, no respect due to Blumenthal, cannot necessarily always be overriden by Congress. So what does it all prove? That liberals can be as intellectually dishonest as their enemies? But a 10 year old knew that. I'm only posting for those who have not searched the web for the other side of this issue.