"...any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists...constitutional guarantees are in place...because we value the Constitution."

- President George W. Bush, April 2004

On December 16, the New York Times published a story about a secret surveillance program undertaken by the National Security Agency (NSA). At the President's direction early in 2002, the NSA began monitoring phone calls and other communications of people in the United States believed to have contact with suspected associates of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups overseas. While not an illegal act with a court approved warrant, the Bush administration chose to circumvent the legal approval process in a seeming blatant disregard for law. The domestic spying program continues to this day with little or no legal oversight.

In 1978 the FISA Court was established through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for the purpose of regulating the collection of foreign intelligence acquired primarily through electronic eavesdropping and wiretapping. Though well intentioned, the FISA Court has been little more than a judicial rubber stamp for surveillance requests since its inception. It's exceedingly rare for this secretive court to refuse requests and there are 2 federal judges routinely on standby in Washington at all times for emergency requests. A weak check, but a check nonetheless.

The Bush administration's rationales for ignoring the FISA court have consisted mainly of the usual references to national security concerns and the need for greater expediency than the court process affords. As well, the President has cited the authority given him by Congress to use force in Afghanistan and Iraq, and of course the time-tested appeals to the collective national fear they've carefully crafted by invoking 9-11 and the specter of future similar attacks. They've recently trotted out all forms of administration officials to assure the American people that the program is limited in nature and constitutionally sound - including appearances by the rhetorically challenged President himself who's insisted on its legality because he's had "all kinds of lawyers look at this". It would hardly be wise to choose this moment to believe the President is being truthful with the American people on any topic, no less on a controversial and secretive initiative in his "war on terror".

Despite their breathless pleadings to the contrary, two things appear quite clear here - the President of the United States has authorized the illegal wiretapping of American citizens on American soil, and the people in charge of our government are systematically expanding the powers of the executive branch at the expense of the checks and balances guaranteed to the American people in the Constitution. In short, the President, at the urging of the Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal, has decided that there are no laws that apply to him as long as he claims that his actions are directly tied to his sworn oath to protect the American people. He can do anything as long as he says it's legal. Congress and the courts are seen as a hindrance and it is not only his right but also his solemn duty to ignore their oversight at his discretion. It would not be overly sensational to say that we are in the midst of a burgeoning constitutional crisis.

The Washington Post reports that in 2002, while the secret wiretapping was going on, a Republican senator introduced legislation intended to make it easier for FBI agents to obtain surveillance warrants in terrorism cases. The proposal would have lowered the FISA standard for approving domestic spying from "probable cause" to the awkward and vague "reasonable suspicion". The White House rejected the plan, comically claiming that the current system was working well enough and that lowering the legal standard may be unconstitutional. Had they accepted the proposal, there would have been a strong obligation to adhere to it. They had already been breaking one law aimed at regulating spying and protecting the privacy and fundamental rights of Americans; there was no reason to add another to the list. In one of their few examples of good governance, the Bush administration saved the Congress' time and the public's money by passing on new legislation they would only have ignored.

As an unabashed supporter of the expansion of presidential authority, the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court is a further example of the erosion of any attempt by the Bush administration to hide their desire to move the office of the president into the realm of the `unitary executive' - a doctrine that calls for nearly unlimited and unchecked presidential power. The President has used the term in many of his "signing statements" since his dubious ascension to the Oval Office. A "signing statement" is issued at a president's discretion and defines how he interprets the bill he is signing into law. While many past presidents have attached signing statements to legislation, Bush had used this prerogative more often in his first term alone than all presidents combined since the James Monroe administration in 1817. And rarely if ever had they been used to provide such broad authority to bypass the very law that's just been signed. Unfortunately that's exactly how the Bush signing statements read.

Most Bush signing statements, issued with little fanfare or media attention, reject provisions in bills that the White House regard as interfering with its powers in national security, intelligence policy and law enforcement. Only recently with the statement attached to the McCain bill restricting torture - which essentially renders that legislation meaningless - have the media and legal community began to take notice and consider the implications. In a case that defines the term "stranger than fiction", lawmakers attempted to restrain Bush's use of signing statements in 2003 by passing a Department of Justice spending bill including a requirement that the DOJ inform Congress when the administration decides to ignore a legislative provision on constitutional grounds. Bush signed the bill, but issued a statement asserting his right to ignore the notification requirement.

Hearings are scheduled in Congress for February 6th to examine the matter of the NSA spying program and the very questionable legality of it. Important no doubt, but the singular focus on the spying program obscures the larger and more important issue - that the Bush administration was largely unconcerned whether it was legal or not when they ordered and approved it. The administration's unbridled arrogance and obvious disregard for constitutional protections in blind pursuit of their far-reaching but failing agenda threatens each American individually and severely jeopardizes the basic principles of our democracy.

It's time for Americans of all political persuasions to reject an administration that feels there are no laws that exist to constrain the president and is leading our great country down a path to ruin.