Not my usual source, but a quotation from the Cato Institute

you'll get hate mail because you are you.

for expressing his agreement for seat belt laws...

Here is the link to the entire Cato report:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf

Executive Summary

In recent judicial confirmation battles, President Bush has repeatedly?and correctly?stressed fidelity to the Constitution as the key qualification for service as a judge. It is also the key qualification for service as the nation's chief executive. On January 20, 2005, for the second time, Mr. Bush took the presidential oath of office set out in the Constitution, swearing to ''preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' With five years of the Bush administration behind us, we have more than enough evidence to make an assessment about the president's commitment to our fundamental legal charter

Unfortunately, far from defending the Constitution, President Bush has repeatedly sought to strip out the limits the document places on federal power. In its official legal briefs and public actions, the Bush administration has advanced a view of federal power that is astonishingly broad, a view that includes

* a federal government empowered to regulate core political speech?and restrict it greatly when it counts the most: in the days before a federal election;

* a president who cannot be restrained, through validly enacted statutes, from pursuing any tactic he believes to be effective in the war on terror;

* a president who has the inherent constitutional authority to designate American citizens suspected of terrorist activity as ''enemy combatants,'' strip them of any constitutional protection, and lock them up without charges for the duration of the war on terror? in other words, perhaps forever; and

* a federal government with the power to supervise virtually every aspect of American life, from kindergarten, to marriage, to the grave.

President Bush's constitutional vision is, in short, sharply at odds with the text, history, and structure of our Constitution, which authorizes a government of limited powers.

Contrary to Robyn Blummer's interpretation, this ''unblinking 28-page analysis'' is hardly support for her contention that Bush has put America on any such road to autocracy. Her ''sweeping quotation'' (that I guess is what caught Rob's ever critical eye) refers to a VERY narrow issue raised in this piece -- the enemy combatant designation. The authors themselves used this statement to add weight to what they see as the great perils of the ''enemy combatant'' designation, but even if one excepts their view on that issue, it hardly refers to the Administration's actions on the whole.

The first point spends three pages discussing how Bush should NOT have signed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Debacle. I agree. BUT -- this is HARDLY evidence of any autocracy or overreach of Executive Power! To the contrary, it's somewhat of a weakening or even an abdication. At the very least, one can accuse Bush of deferring this issue to the Supreme Court, thereby at least tacitly acknowledging the notion that they get the ''final say'' on such issues. Bush did what you would think the critics would want here! The CFR issue was long fought, discussed, cussed and recussed in the Congress and passed by both houses
(Senate Vote on BCRA: 59-41, House Vote on BCRA: 240-189). If anything, a Bush veto would have been roundly derided as his hubris overriding the ''will of the people'' (as expressed through their representatives by significant margin -- however tragic ) to cater to his soft money buddies like Ken Lay!

There's a page dedicated to the ''free speech zones'' at the President's speeches. A non-issue IMO, and nothing new.

Several pages are dedicated to the core of the complaint that centers around a very narrow issue -- that being the enemy combatant. The remainder of the issues raised in this section refer to things authorized by the Patriot Act -- again, Congress PASSED this OVERWHELMINGLY. To paint this as a huge reach by Bush's Executive is a bit much.

Ditto the criticism of the ''Nanny State'' stuff in which the Congress is fully complicit if not the driving force. Much of the criticism is in the Bush Administration enforcing ''laws of the land'' as pertains to medical marijuana and the like. The Schiavo case and some others are trivial in the overall scheme of things. Again -- we're talking Congress initiating much of this. So one is hard pressed to see where Robyn Blummer gets this notion that the bulk of Cato's argument supports her autocracy claim.

******************************************************

Incidentally, if the Cato authors are now so revered here, perhaps our resident ''historian'' should read the other literary works of the authors. Yep, speaking of the ''Imperial Presidency'', perhaps the following will appeal to you:

Arrogance of Power Reborn: The Imperial Presidency and Foreign Policy by Gene Healy {shhhhhhh ... don't tell him it's about the Clinton years }

Executive Summary

In his classic 1973 book The Imperial Presidency, historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. warned that the American political system was threatened by ''a conception of presidential power so spacious and peremptory as to imply a radical transformation of the traditional polity.'' America's rise to global dominance and Cold War leadership, Schlesinger explained, had dangerously concentrated power in the presidency, transforming the Framers' energetic but constitutionally constrained chief executive into a sort of elected emperor with virtually unchecked authority in the international arena.

As William Jefferson Clinton came to power in January 1993, there was some reason to hope that the imperial presidency would be scaled back. Clinton, after all, was the first post-Cold War president and a member of a political party that had in the wake of the Vietnam War striven to restrain presidential aggrandizement in foreign policy.

Such hopes proved illusory. Throughout his administration, President Clinton has adopted a view of his executive power that is positively Nixonian in its breadth and audacity. The administration insists that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty still binds the United States under international law, even though the Senate explicitly declined to ratify that agreement. Administration officials likewise insist that the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is still in effect even though one of the contractual parties (the Soviet Union) no longer exists. The administration has attempted to implement provisions of the Kyoto Protocol on the environment while continuing to refuse even to submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification. Those actions demonstrate that President Clinton has routinely abused the treaty power.

In addition to the abuse of the treaty power, the president has repeatedly usurped the congressional war power. In Haiti, Iraq, Sudan, and Bosnia, the Clinton administration displayed its contempt for the constitutional process and asserted a unilateral power to wage war without congressional approval. The most flagrant example was the 78-day air war conducted against Serbia in 1999 despite Congress's adamant refusal to approve the action.

As we approach the end of President Clinton's second term, the imperial presidency is as unconstrained and as menacing as it has been at any time since the Vietnam War. Bold congressional action is needed to reclaim legislative authority over the war power and the treaty power. Only then will America have an executive branch that comports with republican principles of government and the original constitutional design.

or

Dereliction of Duty: The Constitutional Record of President Clinton by Timothy Lynch {and this appears to only include the first term}

Executive Summary

President Clinton recently put his hand on the Bible and swore an oath to ''preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' He took the same oath in January 1993. As the president embarks on his second term in office, it is an appropriate time to review his record thus far to see how well he has defended our Constitution.

Although President Clinton has expressed support for an ''expansive'' view of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, he has actually weakened a number of fundamental guarantees, including those of free speech and the right to trial by jury and that against double jeopardy. He has also supported retroactive taxes, gun control, and warrantless searches and seizures. The president's legal team is constantly pushing for judicial rulings that will sanction expansions of federal power. The Clinton White House has, for example, supported the federalization of health care, crime fighting, environmental protection, and education. Clinton also claims constitutional authority to order military attacks against other countries whenever he deems it appropriate. President Clinton's record is, in a word, deplorable. If constitutional report cards were handed out to presidents, he would receive an F.

It is to be hoped that President Clinton will resolve to be more conscientious about his constitutional responsibilities in his second term. But should his dereliction of duty continue, Congress and the Supreme Court should stand fast against any constitutional transgression. In the present climate, it is vitally important for all Americans to understand that the Constitution is incapable of enforcing itself. That task ultimately rests with the citizenry. If the American people demand adherence to the Constitution, government officials, including President Clinton, will respect the limitations that were wisely placed on their power.

...

President Clinton recently put his hand on the Bible and swore an oath to ''preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' He took the same oath when he assumed office in January 1993. As the president embarks on his second term in office, it is an appropriate time to appraise his record thus far to see how well he has defended our Constitution.

...

It is in that spirit that this study will appraise the constitutional record of President Clinton.

The study takes the Clinton administration to task on a whole range of constitutional issues. From free speech and unreasonable searches to double jeopardy, jury trials, the separation of powers, and federalism, executive branch actions are scrutinized. This study is a systematic examination of the legal papers that the Clinton Justice Department has filed in court cases over the past four years. Those official documents, in addition to President Clinton's public statements and public policy initiatives, demonstrate a level of caprice that should disturb people of goodwill from across the political spectrum. The criticism expressed in this study is often harsh, but the evidence is there, as a matter of public record, for all fair-minded people to see--and it paints a disturbing picture of the president's comportment in office. {underlining is mine}

Remember now Rob ... you can't go trashing YOUR sources!