The President who would be king.

The Constitution of the United States begins with the words "We the people of the United States in order to create a more perfect union.  This is not a document for lawyers and for those who presume to govern us, the people form this union, and the politicians are accountable to the people and to the laws.  This fundamental republican understanding is foundational to maintaining our democracy.  In our time democracy is endanger, not from the tiny networks of Islamic extremists, but rather as a result of a corrosion of values.  For the people of the United States to maintain their democracy the people must hold those they elect accountable to the laws.  This is especially necessary in face of the growing lawlessness of the executive  branch.

The Imperial Presidency was created by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Presidential powers have been expanded by every administration since then, to the determent of democratic freedoms and the checks and balances envisioned by the founders of the federal republic.  But the practice of the late twentieth century Presidents has been to break the law covertly, cover up and maintain deniability.  Bush is openly asserting that he is above the law.

G. Pascal Zachary writes:  "The need for a balance between executive action and democratic accountability was crucial to the creators of the American republic in the late 18th century. Until then, the democratic movements in Europe had succeeded only in subjecting monarchs to certain limits, such as "the power of the purse" in England. In the U.S., the president would be circumscribed by law. This was the great invention of American political practice, even more so than the idea of federalism, which enabled different states of the union to manage their affairs differently.

Because rule of law is fundamental to the moral basis of the presidency, presidents must even uphold laws they don't agree with. Indeed, the willingness of presidents to do so is their defining trait. In this regard, presidents are unlike other citizens. They do not have the option to perform acts of civil disobedience. They cannot argue, in essence, that their conscience does not allow them to abide by the law."

Why then is President Bush insisting on his duty, and even his right, to disregard the laws covering domestic spying, laws that demand the government seek a judge's authority before spying on Americans on American soil?

Zachary argues this is not the work of a bungler, rather his lawlessness results from a calculated assault on the Constitution and American republican tradition.