An AP Report in a WV newspaper site...
The CATO Institute said it best - I'm paraphrasing here. If the President can, by some extraordinary stretch of interpretation and imagination, defend any action he takes in the War on Terror as Commander in Chief, then 1) the Patriot Act is unnecessary, and 2) the doctrine of separation of powers is a joke.
Bush can claim he's not a dictator - I'm sure Castro and Stalin denied it to their people as well. When he took the Oath of Office (both of them), he pledged to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. This most recent news, IMHO, is just the most recent example that he does no such thing. If the Constitution was so important to him (ignoring the rumours reported last week), he'd petition Congress for a true Act of War, then act within that declaration to win it. There has been no formal Congressional Act of War against Iraq; the War on Terror, like the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty, are not wars in any traditional sense, but merely declarations of resolve to remove the planet of scourges both real and imagined; therefore any powers Bush has exercised under the guise of "Commander in Chief" are patently illegal. His actions are traitorous and more than deserving a vote of impeachment.