corrente

Amazing that nobody called bullshit on him for this at his confirmation hearing, but the Senate Dems are still way, way too deferential (except for Barbara Boxer, of course). Read it again:

"[GONZALES:] I do believe there may come an occasion when the Congress might pass a statute that the president may view as unconstitutional" and therefore ignore it.
(via the Barre Times Argus)

Wait a minute. It's up to the Executive—let's try to reserve "President" for Constitutional officers—to decide which laws are unconstitutional? I thought the Supreme Court was supposed to do that, under the doctrine of the separation of powers.

Let's check out the Federalist Papers—something our Republican [cough] friends should consider doing more often—and see what James Madison had to say about a system where the courts and the executive powers were united, instead of being seperated:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system.
(via Federalist Papers, #47)

Funny the oath that soldiers take—"to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," when Bush, by his actions and his nominations, is surely a domestic enemy of the Constitution. Life's little ironies....