Link re: Domestic Spying and the Limits of Executive Power
Glenn’s article contains these passages:
absurd and dangerous proposition that the President has the right to violate a criminal law passed by Congress.
...that the law be made by parliamentary deliberations
The President's defenders are pretending this is a conflict between the President and Congress, and that in times of war, the President's authority prevails. The language I quoted above inadvertantly supports that false distinction by saying, basically, that the President is subject to Congress' laws.
This misses an important point: that the laws passed by Congress are also signed by the then-President. In other words, the laws that Bush violated represent a prior agreement between the Congress and the Executive that they are right and good; the President (in the form of his predecessors) has already agreed to be subject to them.
This makes the "Congress vs. Executive" distinction false and misleading. Bush violated laws that both branches enacted. To claim that the Executive Branch is not subject to a law that the Executive Branch already endorsed is disingenuous – and illegal. And, not to put too fine a point on it, impeachable as a “high crime.”