Thats fine, I want a President with the ability to see various factions as different components of a fractious family. But I'm talking specifically about understanding Constitutional limits in the President's own exercise of his authority—ie, not overstepping the legislature when he has no authority to do so. He has to see himself as a faction of the government, having to work with the Congress on passing agendas.

Originally it was viewed that the President shouldn't even veto legislation unless it was Unconstitutional. I'm not even asking for that. Just that a President knows the limits of his authority in a defendable legal sense.

I also don't agree that 'adherence to the Constitution' is code for anything; I'm sure that you agree that there have been cases where there the Constitution has been abused.

—And I'm also sure that you agree that there are cases where the Constitution has been abused in defense of a political position that you hold.

—I'm perfectly capable of realizing when thats true for me.

Yes, I'm here to contribute substantively to America's political discourse.

What I would like to see in a President is an ability to see the various factions as different components of a fractious family. That's the opposite of seeing it in terms of friends and enemies.
I would like to see the president nominate people to SCOTUS who have real expereince in cilic life, not just in the lofty vaults for law books.
Law that is disconnected from the people it impacts can veer off into dangerous abstractions., where meaning ceases to have any meaning.

Bush-bashing: zzz.

George Will, DC fixture: zzz

i think the situation should be investigated, but provided the telecoms were just trying to cooperate with the federal govt, they should have some type of immunity, because the blame shouldnt be on them

Ha.

The telecoms spend enormous amounts of money on legal counsel. They helped draft the original FISA laws. They knew full well they were being asked to break the law by the Bush administration. Not only that, but they were being paid handsomely for their cooperation.

Both the government and their telecom partners should be punished for their corrupt undermining of the rule of law.

and you might agree with me on this… that electing a favorable Congress will go a lot more towards reforming the system –and even ending the war, if thats your concern—than worrying about whether a minor candidate spoils the presidency.

its hard to get a congress thats really strong though, the last time that happened was in 1994; you need a strong Speaker. Pelosi has been a failure.

I wasn't trying to imply that a “nice guy or nice gal” was a requirement. Just saying that voters do like to support candidates they can relate to on a personal level, though sometimes the “nicest” of the bunch doesn't agree with them on major policy points. (That's one of my issues with McCain. I feel he has the best character, etc. of all of them, but certain key issues will likely make me vote for Bob Barr this year, though he seems far less “nice”)

However, Redfish, I would like to have a president and a legislature and a judiciary who all understand the constiutional limits placed on their respective offices (not that I'm likely to get it from any party) but they still might be “nice” people who I wouldn't mind having a beer with.

there were efforts to work with the telecom industry earlier, in the 90s, under the bush admin they were just more cooperative.

i think the situation should be investigated, but provided the telecoms were just trying to cooperate with the federal govt, they should have some type of immunity, because the blame shouldnt be on them

No, if you say that you didn't like Clinton then there's no reason to get in a pissing match, so I hope we don't.

The point is that all these attempts to portray Bush as “the most corrupt president in history” or “the biggest abuser of power in history” are completely political, and designed to make it look like if we elect a Democrat we can reform things. Its like the slogan “the Republican culture of corruption”, when Democrats are just as corrupt and many Democrats had ties to the infamous Abramoff. The Keating Five were mostly Democrats.

Before the 1978 FISA law, the government regularly did unregulated wiretapping and spying under national security justifications. FISA didn't eliminate wiretapping, it just regulated it. By FISA, the government was allowed to start a wiretap without a warrant, it just had to get a warrant after the fact. Measures in the Bush administration just revised this process, and the Bush admin still has to go through the court system. The main loophole is 'roving wiretaps' meant to cover people who switch from one phone to the next. E-mail and phone 'Sniffing' systems like Carnivore were implemented in the Clinton administration.

People are also unaware of the history of wiretapping. The whole reason we got into WWI was because of illegal wiretapping by the British (Zimmerman Telegram)

I'm not really sure what your point is anyways. Are you looking for some kind of Clinton vs. Bush pissing match?

Bush post-9/11 has just continued in defining some of the areas of presidential power that were already left to him. Rendition policies, wiretapping policies, were already in place prior to Bush's administration. People exaggerate the importance of the Patriot Act. (for political reasons)

First of all, Bush is continuing abuses of authority that Clinton began—with things like massive uses of executive orders to bypass the legislative process.

First off, I didn't like Clinton. And second, it's beyond question that Bush has taken Presidential power and abuse to staggering new heights. Heights unreachable had it not been for 9/11.

Has nothing to do with George Bush. First of all, Bush is continuing abuses of authority that Clinton began—with things like massive uses of executive orders to bypass the legislative process. But this has built up over about a century, with more and more power delegated to the Presidency. Its what historians call “The Imperial Presidency”. George Bush is just following precedent.

IF—btw—you take George Will's proposition seriously—and want a President who performs the powers intended for his job—you will want a President who has a very definite, strict understanding of the Constitution, not a “nice” President, Jazz.

Presidents, in and of themselves, actually have very little power beyond that which the other branches (and the people) assign to them through their “influence” in governmental action.

Not true anymore and for that we can thank George Dubya and Darth Cheney.