Since the 1970’s, when FISA was originally passed, the executive has accumulated more power generally. But only during the Bush II regime has the executive treated the Congress as if it were not a branch created in the Constitution’s first article, ahead of the executive. It did that in part by a faulty reading of its own powers.

In the American constitutional system, unlike the British, it is possible for the legislature to pass laws that the judiciary deems are unconstitutional and which are therefore void, in whole or in part.

If the executive determines legislation to be unconstitutional, ordinarily it works with the legislature to revise the legislation or it interprets it in a constitutional manner. As a last resort, it would take the matter to a federal court – over a specific “case or controversy” (US courts cannot issue advisory opinions) – so as to get the court to declare the law unconstitutional. That’s the expectation outside the Beltway.

Many here consider the Bush II regime to have acted unlawfully by failing to act in good faith in determining the constitutionality of legislation and in its interpretation the reach of its own constitutional powers, including the power to ignore federal laws inconsistent with its own sense of power.

The administration went to enormous lengths to avoid testing its assertions via the judicial process, deeming itself beyond the need to do that – because we were in DANGER!!! Or so it said. If the torture memos are examples of the substance behind its claims, the administration avoided the courts because it knew its claims would wilt the moment they were understood outside the West Wing.

You also raise an important point, in that all of this is well known inside the Beltway and on Capitol Hill. It suits their collective purposes to ignore it. Congress has thereby ceded, hopefully temporarily, a considerable portion of its power. The courts are only beginning to speak on this subject, which is why it matters so much what Ms. Sotomayor’s views are on executive power. As the saying goes, power is not given, it’s taken.

Wouldn’t Feingold have been wise to get Holder to admit to the EXACT word (unlawful), and then gotten him to define that word as meaning the same thing as ‘illegal?’”

What is the difference between “illegal” and “unlawful?” For that matter, Holder made a point of saying he had said the spying was in “contravention” of or “inconsistent” with the law. If one “contravenes” the law one has broken it; if one acts in a manner “inconsistent” with the law, one has broken it.

One has acted…wait for it…”illegally.”

Holder’s used-car-dealer slipperiness was appalling to behold, and places him firmly in the ranks with Mukasey and Gonzalez as being nothing but whores who serve their pimp, the President of the United States.

There’s no avoiding the reality that Obama is a fraud, a cheap hack who serves the interests of the oligarchy, while presenting himself–and possibly actually seeing himslf–as some sort of paragon. Of course, this was apparent in his pre-election betrayal in voting FOR the revised FISA law. That act of servility to power guaranteed I would never vote for Obama.

This morning the NYT further muddies the record:

A spokesman for the intelligence community said any “overcollection” was inadvertent and “when such errors are identified,” they are quickly corrected.

As we both know, yesterday the NYT didn’t say that the word “overcollection” was a quote from a government spokesman.

Curious.

And this is just plain wrong:

President George W. Bush started violating that law shortly after 9/11 when he authorized the N.S.A. to conduct domestic wiretapping without first getting the required warrant. When that program was exposed by The Times in late 2004, the Bush team began pressuring Congress to give retroactive legal cover to the eavesdropping operation and to the telecommunications companies that participated in it.

The NYT didn’t expose the program in “late 2004″, it discovered it in 2004 and then covered it up until Dec. 2005. (After the 2004 election).

Early in the “horse-race,” I pegged him as a puppet; a smooth, calming front man who could make the millions swoon with his soaring oratory and rhetoric that had everyone believing that he had actually just said something. He even claimed he was the empty screen on which people projected their hopes and dreams. So he knows the impact he has on Obamabots.

It took a lots of $ to bring down the Clintons. I don’t think the small donations were a big part of it.

IOW, I think he’s fronting the MIC. Furthermore, (here comes some TFH), I think there may have been a quid pro quo…Obama gets elected, bushco goes free.