Speaking of the Bush administration’s continued expansion of executive powers that impinge on the possibility for legislative or judicial oversight, Atrios writes:

To the extent that this is about his successor, my guess is that they figure that Congress will rediscover its interest in oversight and objections to presidential executive power overreach. The very powers Bush claimed will, for a Democratic president, be the foundation for impeachment. They aren’t just masters of hypocrisy, they’re masters of “distinctions without differences.” That is, when President ClintonObama does it, it’s somehow different when President BushMcCain does it. Don’t worry, Cliff May will explain it to Wolf Blitzer and Pete Hoekstra will explain it to Joe Klein and it’ll all make sense.

I think this is about right.  A Democratic President will immediately be subject to a different set of rules, both by Congress and by the media, than the Bush administration has lived by. It wouldn’t shock me if the 250 odd Republicans in Congress suddenly discovered a copy of the US Constitution and became card-carrying members of the ACLU, going on a rampage to defend our civil liberties. Of course the press would eat it up and suddenly the rule of law will become Important.

I’d expect a President Obama, Clinton, or even McCain to be more competent than the Bush administration at using executive powers. For example, they’d be sure the FBI payed their bills on time so our oh-so patriotic phone companies will keep our wiretaps up.

But the problem with an environment where the rule of law suddenly matters to the Republican opposition and the press is that the rule of law should matter to these people, just as it matters to the Democrats in Congress now. A President Clinton or Obama should not be seeking expansive executive branch powers to conduct surveillance on the American public without oversight from the legislature or the judiciary. They should not publicly and persistently choose to break the law and conduct domestic surveillance outside of FISA. They should not torture or render or use secret prisons in third world countries. And if they do these things, a Democratic President, just like President Bush or a President McCain, should be subject to strong opposition by Congress and public scrutiny and criticism by the press.

Senator Dodd has often said on the floor of the Senate that he would be just as vociferous in his opposition to retroactive immunity and warrantless wiretapping if it was a Democrat in the White House. I believe him and I would put myself squarely in that camp.

Just because it would be politically inconvenient if a Democratic President was perpetrating these crimes doesn’t make them any more or less legal than when President Bush perpetrates them.