Declaring that I am wrong without any supporting evidence, demonstrates rather effectively that you are not above attempting to force your personal opinion into the law. Show me where in the Constitution, it is written that historical precedent, fixed at the time that the Constitution was written or amended, should control its interpretation. That is an extraordinarily liberal reading of the document, because there is not one word suggesting this doctrine present within the four corners of the Constitution. You are applying your personal opinion of how the Constitution should be read, in order to reach the result you believe should prevail. This is the EXACT behavior which you decry in so called activist judges. There is no "right" interpretation of the Constitution, nor is there any "wrong" interpretation. The Constitution is just a collection of words, intended to focus the reasoning mind on the organization of our society for its benefit. And, while it may be true that at this moment in history, we need to wiretap every international phone call to determine whether the parties are trying to overthrow our government, there is nothing inherent within the text of the Constitution which permits that it be done in violation of an Act of Congress. In fact, by the President suggesting that he has "inherent" authority to act, he too, advances a "liberal" theory which is not found in the Constitution. But, it suits his purpose -- which he apparently believes is more important than the words of the founders. And, that's just the President's personal opinion -- it's not a conservative view of law, at all. But, you like it, so you support it, as if it were. Thus, you and Mr. Bush are both a liberal on the issue of Executive Power. Shame on you, you judicial activists.
whats that... some form of new age group therapy? if u want to impeach your prez there is a process u know?