As usual, Glenn keeps the focus on the important Constitutional issues at the heart of the current scandal-du-jour. I'm definitely giving it a digg.

Other readers: Go ahead and digg the article yourself, but don't be surprised if it suddenly disappears after getting popular. That would be because it gets "buried" inappropriately by right-wing diggers.

Still, it helps get the word out on the important link between Bush administration "signing statement" practices and their effect on the real world. So digg it!

Are you impugning the honor and character of our Dear Leader? How dare you suggest that the President follow the law! Do you want the terrorists to win? Do you hate America? Shame on you.

Our Constitution clearly states that our Leader is chosen by God to follow God's orders, not Congress's, especially not a Democrat Congress's. It is treasonous for you to imply otherwise. If you have a problem with our President do you think he cares? If you object to what he does in his Divine wisdom, then you should call for his impeachment.

On second thought, maybe that's not such a bad idea.

I've been checking out conservative radio and blogs and they are in hysterics as they sense the wave of investigations, subpoenas, and committee hearings on the horizon.

This from the crowd that screamed YEE-HAW to the relentless string of republican investigations and scandal inventing from 1994-2000, led by the likes of Gingrich, Delay, Burton, and Barr. That culminated with--HEY LOOK EVERYBODY, WE HAVE A BLUE DRESS. WE NEED TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE.

Who would have thought a couple of weeks ago that the firing of US-Attorneys would have been the string, that once pulled, would start to unravel the DOJ and it's condoning of Executive lawbreaking.

Every now and again we get these popcorn moments that give me great hope that our system of democracy is salvagable.

More sunshine please!

This President should be impeached today because there is more than enough evidence that he has broke the law on more than one occasion.

By this or any other President breaking even one law of the Constitution or any criminal statutes is grounds for removal.

The president can be removed simply because he has failed to obey the Constitution alone.

This President has a list of violations of breaking both statutory and Constitutional law. This is why we have the current problem we have in our country of public corruption from main street to Washington, as there is no accountability.

The president should be impeached immediately and Gonzales needs to be removed also immediately.

If our current system of government continues on in the direction it is going unchecked we will find ourselves in the throes of a tyrannical government that will be totally out of control and that is the first signs of the destruction of a country from within as history has witnessed many times.

If the rule of law is not re-established in our country we have sealed our own fate.

This President is obviously deranged and a most dangerous person as are many of his advisers.We must have checks and balances.

What should the congressional response be at the point where the DoJ again refuses to answer any questions or follow the law with regard to records?

I'm tired of all the useless postings in this and other comment sections yelping "impeach! impeach!" First, it ain't gonna happen, and second if it does happen it will only be because enough Republicans are forced to go along with it.

That should be the goal -- to break away enough Republicans who finally realize their future is not with Bush or anyone associated with him.

Yet another great post, Glenn. It really is amazing how supine the press has been in covering the Bush administration and their supporters (doubly so contrasted to how they treated the Clinton administration). Yet (according to a Zogby poll) still 64% of the US population thinks the media leans left vs. only 28% who see a conservative bias. Fully 97% of Republicans think the media has a liberal bias. See http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262

Such a yawning gap between perception vs. reality. Slowly shifting no doubt, but there's a mighty long way to go.

I know that the politically-motivated firings of eight lawyers is hardly the worst of this administration's crimes, but if that's what they're hung by, it's fine with me. This administration has done whatever it damn well pleases not because it's right or necessary or remotely accidental, but deliberately and consciously and provocatively. They know exactly what they're doing, and it's being done in a systematic way. They are deliberately trying to push forward the constitutional powers of the executive branch. It must be stopped, cataloged, refuted, and sanctioned in a powerful and unambiguous way.

This blog has been an invaluable resource for citing many of these abuses. I don't think it's an overstatement to say that Mr. Greenwald has done a lot to help save American democracy.

From the DOJ's document, this gem:

every court of appeals to reach

the question has held that the President has inherent constitutional authority to conduct electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes without first obtaining a court order, even during peacetime. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002) (noting that “all the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information,” and, assuming that is so, “FISA [cannot] encroach on the President’s power.”); United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 913-17 (4th Cir. 1980); United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593, 602-06 (3d Cir. 1974) (en banc); United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 425-27 (5th Cir. 1973); see also Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the National Security Agency Described by the President 30-34 (Jan. 19, 2006) (“Legal Authorities”).

Is this exactly the same block of cases that Bart used to trot out ad infinitum, with the addition of the last case from 2006? What does that 2006 case state?