Given the neocons' penchant for trickle-down economics and their utter disregard for the general welfare of the nation, perhaps their boy George should be exalted as the Urinary Executive.

"This illegal surveillance is a prosecutor's nightmare". Maybe so, Elizabeth, but the court of public opinion will provide the odd sleepless night for King George as well.

Great point about "unitary executive" not appearing in the constitution. Now I'm going to look for "abortion".

The more these clowns in the Bush Administration react to the attacks on 9/11, the more I am convinced they completely blew the intel then and know it. Each reaction seems to be another smoke screen to deflect the fact that these attacks happened on their watch and could have been prevented with just a little competence. When will they be held accountable?

3: characterized by or constituting a form of government in which power is held by one central authority; "a unitary as opposed to a federal form of government" [ant: federal]

so much for democracy, sounds more like fascism.

We should stand by our president, Jesus Ch... erh, um, I mean, George Bush. George Bush knows what's best for us and if low wages at Walmart is best for us than dammit, that's what it will be. Why do the few "individualists" have to spoil it for the rest of us and destroy our dehumanizing way of life? One way or another, we have to hold on to human slavery. It's good for us, it's good for Bush, and it's good for America!

What concerns me most about President Bush’s rationale for wiretapping U.S. citizens is that he invokes the so-called “War on Terror,” stating that “during wartime” a president has and must use extra-legal powers to defend the country. But let’s face it, the “War on Terror” isn’t a war in any classical sense of the word. It’s more like the “War on Drugs” or the “War on Cancer” in which the nation commits resources to eradicating a complex, slippery, multi-faceted problem that crosses international borders. So, if there wasn’t a “War on Terror,” would the “War on Drugs” suffice as a “wartime” in conferring presidential power to go outside the law? What if all the president had available was a “War on Littering and Jaywalking” – would that be enough to justify the NSA listening in on citizens' phone calls without a warrant?

Surely the line is drawn somewhere -- I pray.

Very simple version of the UET: The President can do anything that won't get him impeached and kicked out of office.

This is simply the Presidential version of Oliver Wendell Holmes's famous axiom: the law is merely a menu of what the government might do to you if you behave in such-and-such a way. Basically, if it won't cost us jail time or cash, it isn't against the law. Jaywalking is supposedly against the law. But if the cops won't ticket jaywalkers, as a practical matter it isn't.

Slightly longer version: The Executive -- not the just the President, all of them -- swears to "faithfully" preserve, etc. the Constitution. To do its job, it must frequently interpret the law. It cannot and should not rely on the other branches' interpretations, save possibly when there is case law precisely on point. Indeed, the "cases and controversies" clause prevents the Executive from consulting the courts. Therefore, the Executive's good-faith decision about the Constitutionality of a course of action is presumptively legal, and it should go ahead. If the other branches disagree, they have Holmes's remedy: punishment under the law. That means impeachment, trial and removal from office. That's the only stick the other branches have. This leaves two kinds of "high crimes and misdemeanors." The President can be false to his oath, especially interpreting the laws in bad faith, or he can refuse to leave the office when the time comes.

He's clearly interpreting the laws in bad faith. So let's get on with it. Let's impeach him and kick him out. Cheney, too, while we're at it.

I must admit that this whole thing confuses me somewhat. It seems so clear.

There is a law on the books that explicitly forbids the President from doing what he did. The President not only broke that law, he also admitted it, and has promised to break it again. (I am not enough of a legal scholar--not one at all, actually--to say so, but if this isn't an "illegal search and seizure" and therefore un-Constitutional, what the heck is?) Why is this complicated at all? The guy broke the law and admitted it; where's the confusing part?

It is also pretty clear from the Administration's prevarications that they know this is blatantly illegal as well. When this issue was explicitly discussed prior to passing the authorization to use force, Senators told the White House that such would not authorize these kinds of taps. When asked about the taps, the Attorney General admitted that they didn't go to Congress because they figured Congress would not authorize an expansion of wiretapping of this type. And further, it is clear that very few people outside the immediate circle of the Administration (and their apologists on the right, such as Fred Barnes) agree with the idea that being the Commander-in-chief during wartime absolves the President of following the law.

I am further confused as to how "conservatives" can support this. Didn't some of these folks actually become conservatives because of the over-reaching for executive power of previous Democratic Presidents like FDR and LBJ? Don't these folks say that they want a less-intrusive government? Did I miss something, or are these not bedrock conservative principles?

Anyway, I'm confused. It is trite to say so, but if this had been Bill Clinton, the impeachment proceedings would have started last November.

Rodgert Lodger's reasonong is quite defective. He states that there is nothing in the Constitution about abortion, thereby saying we shouldn't allow it. His fallacy is that the Constitution says nothing about any medical procedure, yet we have laws for the practice of medicine.

On the other hand, the Constitution has a whole lot to say about the three branches of government, their roles and checks and balances on each. There is nothing about the Unitary Executive Theory.