As I’ve mentioned before, impeachment is probably a non-starter in the absence of a court ruling that the administration’s domestic surveillance policies are unconstitutional. It does become a more significant possibility with such a ruling to back it up, especially one affirmed by the Supreme Court, although the odds are still against it for reasons already given.

I completely agree with this. I doubt it’s going to happen either, and I frankly don’t think he should be impeached. But I do think we should know whether or not our legal system should determine whether or not the President does have this authority, and to your point debsay, that should explain it all.

But to this point.

you’re lucky if you can get 10 people to agree to a specific course of action let alone 550.

Well, 550 people don’t have to agree on it. You simply have to have a majority. But the AUMF was overwhemingly (was it unanimously) passed through both the House and the Senate. So yes, we can agree and that’s the system our founding fathers outlined.

“There’s definitely room for doubt I agree. And that’s why Bush saying that the Constitution gives him the ultimate authority makes me cringe. It just doesn’t seem right. I mean, does it seem like the framers would have given that type of authority to the President, especially given they were declaring their freedom from a monarchy. In the end, though, isn’t interpreting the Constitution like interpreting the bible? Can’t you read into it what you like?”

Yes it does, because we have elections every 4 years and we can vote him out if he doesn’t do what we want him to…. How can you say that the Constitution doesn’t give him these powers and then turn around and explain what Presidents in past wars have done??? Look at history… Look at what Lincoln did during war, look at what Roosevelt did during war – he actually ordered the ‘taking into custody of over 100,000 American Citizens’ without any charges and had them locked up until the end of the war to ‘prevent’ any possible espionage. That far outweighs what Bush has done here….. Lincoln had opposition legislators ordered under arrest and had one guy from Ohio deported to the South for being an agitator…. He had reporters locked up for agitating, he had 9 Maryland state legislators arrested and held until a vote could take place to prevent Maryland from succeeding from the Union. All of this is so much more than what Bush has done – it amazes me that people still question this.

Clinton cited the same privileges and then tried to expand them to include non foreign intelligence activities like warrantless searches of public housing recipients in high crime neighborhoods…. this is much more than what Bush is doing….

When it comes to Foreign policy and collection of foreign intelligence whether it is in wartime or peace time – the President has sole authority over it. It was made that way for a reason, but even more so during war – you’re lucky if you can get 10 people to agree to a specific course of action let alone 550. That is also why the President is the Commander in Chief and the Congress is not the Commanders in Chief.

I understand your points about impeachment, and that’s exactly why I said an possible impeachment couldn’t be a partisan act. That’s what I responded to, this notion of partisan politics, which I don’t think applies here. Logically it couldn’t be since Dems don’t have the votes, even if their voices are the loudest. I agree it’s a political act, but not a partisan one.

Lastly, I just have to ask…own the next terrorist attack? I’m sorry Dave, but you’re going to have to justify that one to me since they’ve had virtually no power the past 5 years and would have to bring forth articles of impeachment in a bi-partisan fashion. Those two things don’t jive. And furthermore, how can the Dems own the next terrorist attack when they haven’t set the policies and agenda in the WOT?

Answers Dave! I need answers!!! ;-)

Impeachment is always a political act. That’s the nature of our system. And the political environment does not favor Bush’s impeachment. Unless a Republican-led movement in that direction can be engineered (which seems to me extremely unlikely) the loudest voices calling for it will be Democrats. Were Democrats successful in removing Bush under these circumstances they would own the next terrorist attack. I think the Democratic leadership is far more likely to bide its time and wait for 2008 than to take that risk.