I suggest we all contact our senators. So what if the acting AG stays in office and is just a hack? There's a matter of principle here, and if even right after Gonzo we can't make a stand against the abuse of presidential power, when can we?

Ferg--

I think what has to happen first is an institutional mindset in the Democratic Party. They don't play to win, they play to tie. They don't like being in the minority, mind you, but their ambition ends at power-sharing. That's where and when they stop fighting. Individual members may have personal beliefs and hopes--visions for America they'd like to see fulfilled--but when they stop and think of how bruising the fight would be to get there they recoil, and settle for what they've got. It's as if they're afraid of their own dreams. I've given up looking for anything principle-driven until there's been a purge from the ground up. (And to those who react negatively to the word "purge," it's not always crazy orthodoxy. Sometimes the whole system really is rotten.)

Why didn't someone at the hearings simply use the words:
"What happened to 'no one is above the law"?

This man clearly believes a President can - at his own whim - simply define himself to be above the law. How can we allow (another) such man to be AG?

You folks don't know much about your history.

You should spend a little time reading The Terror Presidency by Jack Goldsmith. He covers numerous historical precedents of Presidents disregarding statutes in times of war when those statutes hindered the Presidents' exercise of Commander in Chief powers.

The words of Article II mean something. There is an arena of conduct that is wholly conferred upon the Executive in Article II which cannot be modified by statute, any more than the Supreme Court can originate a bill for raising revenue. If Congress wants to dictate the President's Commander in Chief power it can only do so via an Amendment to the Constitution. A statute doesn't count.

Nell: What if Congress passed a law that said the penalty for obstruction of congress shall be death, and that there shall be no right of appeal from a trial court conviction?

Does the President have the authority to not "faithfully" execute that law?

Maria -- not its not. It addresses the question of whether the President can refuse to faithfully execute an unconstitutional STATUTE.

It has NOT always been the case that the President was obligated to faithfully execute all statutes until the Supreme Court says which ones are unconstitutional. There are three co-equal branches of government. The President has just as much constitutional authority as the other two branches to chose not to enforce statutes he concludes are unconstitutional -- it would be a violation of his oath to PRESERVE, PROTECT, and DEFEND the Constitution.

That oath is in the Constitution, and it is different from the oath taken by federal civil service employees, who swear to "Support and Defend the Constitution".

The President is the ONLY office holder who swears an oath to PRESERVE and PROTECT the Constitution.

So, if Congress passes a statute clearly in violation of the Bill of Rights, does the President, pursuant to his oath of office, have an obligation to disregard that law?

Now, if Congress passes a statute clearly in violation of Article II, does the President, pursuant to his oaht of office, have an obligation to disregard that law?

What is the President's obligation if the statute in question with respect to Art. II is vague?

These are not strawman questions. They are very real questions that the Executive and Legislative branches have been arguing over since the Civil War.

Go read Jack Goldsmith's book.

"The President is the ONLY office holder who swears an oath to PRESERVE and PROTECT the Constitution." by shipwreckedcrew

But that is precisely the problem! President Bush and his ilk has been slowly destroying the consitituional protections under the guise of fighting "The War on Terror". What good is it when in fighting this so-called war the people lose everything they were fighting for?. Mukasey is part of a much larger problem. The idea of the unitary executive. There were such systems before the advent of democratic republics, and they were called monarchies!

What in the hell is that answer of Mukasey's supposed to mean? I've re-read it several times and for the life of me I can't figure out what he's saying.

Jane is correct. The hypotheticals used are not valid as the Supreme Court's role is ignored in deciding what is constituional or what isn't. You are insinuating dictatorial powers that the President clearly doesn't have.