Bush in '08?

No, not that idiot Jeb. I'm thinking that after Florida hurricanes and that Terri Schiavo nonsense, his chances at the presidency have been sufficiently minimized. I'm worried about GWB for four more years. (Or, technically, from this date, 7 more years).

And, yes, I know it's a violation of the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to elect a president to three terms in office. But we've seen the President openly disregard the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is a lot higher up than 22. I mean, the 4th was part of the original document! It's like Constitution 1.0! How you gonna violate that shit? It was probably written by Madison or someone important.

Basically, Bush broke the law. And not just some silly little FISA law (although he did break that law). He broke the fourth most important law in the country. And instead of everyone getting upset with him, all the people who hate him anyway are more upset and no one else seems to give two shits.

His supporters are actually lining up to defend domestic spying! Did you hear our Attorney General, ol' Waterboard Gonzales, and his intensely weak, ridiculous defense of their actions? First, he said the president didn't violate the law by secretly wiretapping communications between American citizens...Then, he said that the president essentially has limitless surveillance powers during wartime.

So the president can break any law he wants in the interest of national security, then, right? That's what Bush defenders are arguing at this point. He's preznit, he has to be really powerful...(what Dick Cheney would call "a robust, powerful chief executive")...so he should be freed up to do what he feels need be done, regardless of the laws...

I'm just saying, if that's really how around 50% of the country feels, then we're not facing a typical liberal vs. conservative kind of argument. This is an argument about whether we want a president or a king.

Are there any limitations at all on what the President can do under the guise of national security and, if so, what are they? And, given this theory of the "wartime" President who can violate the laws of Congress and who can ignore the courts in areas of national security, what legal foundation could exist to argue for any such limitations?

Now, I'm not one to bring the Founding Fathers up in arguments. I think they are overused in contemporary debate, have become meaningless patriotic "symbols," because most Americans don't know enough about their own history to make any informed comments about its birth. But George Washington would not have liked the idea of the President continually and secretly spying on his own people, and he would have openly rejected the notion of a president granting himself additional powers not outlined in the Constitution in order to conduct an undeclared war.

But, hey, who cares, right? If that's what Americans want, if they want to be ruled with an iron fist by uncaring demagogues backed financially and through propaganda by massive corporations, then who am I to stand in the way?

So, here's my final question...If you really believe that the president should have limitless wartime powers...what's stopping him from just declaring the 22nd Amendment null and void. Or, forgoing Election 2008 all together and just declaring himself President-for-Life? Seriously. I mean, I can imagine the speech right now...

"My fellow Americans, we are facing a fight for the very soul of our great nation. We must stop these terrorist killers. That must be our top priority. We can't worry about having some...some election right now...just when the Iraqi people need us most. We're building an army over there, and a police force, and they really need me right now. And I promised them that we would stay the course, we would not surrender and leave their country to the Saddamites who want to overtake it and enslave everyone. Freedom is on the march, and that's why we can't have any more elections here in America. At least not for now. So, I am declaring myself President-For-Life, so that we can focus all of our energies on providing the Iraqi people with elections. Are you so selfish? You'd rather have elections here, where we've had them every four years for centuries, than give a few extra elections to the Iraqis, who've never really had one good one?"