A strict interpretation of the executive powers outlined in our constitution create the image of what should essentially be the essence of the literal meaning of “executive” – one who executes the law (in this case, or at least theoretically, the Constitution of the United States). Since our historical rise to an economic (and military) power that has the ability to dominate the world marketplace (and battlefield) the responsibilities of the executive have been greatly increased, along with it's law-making and oversight functions. I would argue this is largely do to the need for rapid decision-making in times of crisis, the most fundamental application being the use of nuclear weaponry against an attacking foe. But this power expansion has gone unchecked and has led to the advent of the prevention initiative, that is methods designed to model and predict outcomes and make decisions beforehand accordingly. Although wonderful for models of brain neuronal function, it makes the same fundamental error as elaborate economic game-theory models make in that they fail to take into account the full gambit of irrational variables. It might be said that I am referring to the lack of information by which decision-making algorithms fail for lack of data, but what I am really saying is that the variables themselves are bunk. They are bad because they ignore the rational self-interest motivator and replace it with the good feelings of mutualism.

Complicating matters is the notion (that seems so totally foreign to us) that not everyone thinks like an American. I believe we are “good people” using the very same semantic definition used by a somewhat popular writer of economic fiction that has tickled my fancy for the past eight months, but we have assumed with this seemingly assigned role as the stewards of righteousness the responsibility for co-mingling varying viewpoints that are almost always completely contradictory. Take Israel and Palestine…it's hopeless! Peace would be wonderful, but it is completely unrealistic when two groups of people, whose separate cultures are taught to despise one another, want the exact same chunk of desert for almost the same reason and they refuse to share it. They are fated to kill each other over matters that are as basic and clear-cut to them as freedom of speech is to us. I say pick a side, the side that is likely to aid the western powers the most (Israel) and go with it – it's pragmatic.

Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too and we help them to do that by sanctioning their arguments and meddling in foreign affairs. We usually we do this by flushing money away at a rate that simply boggles the mind. I have no doubt that we act earnestly, but we have everything to lose. Perhaps if we look at the world from a slightly more selfish point of view, we can give up the role as world ombudsman and point our government toward making policy that matters for it's citizens. With this “defocusing”, I think we will see a shift away from preventative measures being taken by the executive branch to stave off potential harm and thereby reduce the threat to our civil liberties.

At stake is the right of privacy, and Eric Holder has submitted the argument that the US cannot be sued if plaintiffs charge our government with wiretapping them without just cause. The illegal data mining tactics of the last President that sifted your and my private conversations would now be immune to recourse for those who were wronged.

Regardless of which way the court finally rules on this notion, it demonstrates the first time I have to question the Obama Administration.

It would leave us with a Constitutional Right, but leaves citizens with no redress if its stolen. That's tantamount to not having the right at all.

The OLC provides interpretations of Constitutional and Congressional law as it relates to the policy directives that the President wants to move towards and those opinions are de facto the laws of the country until they are challenged in court by someone with appropriate standing. The government lawyers aren't there to represent their “client,” and try to get the government off the hook, they are there to represent policy choices.

If you've been following these cases (and similar) since they've first come up, they always have had the same pattern: an OLC interpretation provides legal authority for a program, people are targeted — or at the very least have reason to suspect they were — and bring suit, the case is thrown out (appropriately) due to lack of standing. What's inappropriate is that the government doesn't allow for discovery to see if there is standing.

If you read the history the judges in these cases thought that the new government lawyers were going to drop all their objections and open up the evidence. In fact they were surprised when the government didn't and it was clear that they hadn't even fully been ready for that decision.

So if there is a problem with what the Executive is doing, there is the legal path (hoping to get a situation and judge that finds the court can even look into it, and if the court does hope that there is enough evidence that is submitted to make a decision) the political-legal path of having Congress amend the law explicitly, or the political path of having the Executive change its policy directives.

What you're saying is just another form of what's been driving me crazy the past 8 years which is pretending like the Executive is some normal entity and how we need to understand their decisions in the same context as if you or I were the accused. It's not.

The lawyers in this case are bound by their duty to their client to use any legal framework available in the best interests of their client. It is up to the court to determine whether these motions are in accordance with the law. If they are, it is congress who must amend the law, not the executive branch.

I am having a very hard time not seeing this as the same sort of quasi-factual reporting that Fox engages in. Much ado about nothing.