How Idiots Pose Arguments

This is from Ann Althouse's Op-Ed in the NY Times:

"Laypeople consuming early news reports may well have thought, “What a courageous judge!” and “It’s a good thing someone finally said that the president is not above the law.” Look at that juicy quotation from Judge Taylor’s ruling: “There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution.”

But this is sheer sophistry. The potential for the president to abuse his power has nothing to do with kings and heredity. (How much power do hereditary kings have these days, anyway?) And, indeed, the president is not claiming he has powers outside of the Constitution. He isn’t arguing that he’s above the law. He’s making an aggressive argument about the scope of his power under the law.

It is a serious argument, and judges need to take it seriously. If they do not, we ought to wonder why a court gets to decide what the law is and not the president. After all, the president has a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution; he has his advisers, and they’ve concluded that the program is legal. Why should the judicial view prevail over the president’s?"

Okay for starters, the Justice in question was making a definate historical argument here, not "sophistry". Our government has a system of checks and balances to ensure that someone of hereditary or otherwise declared monarch status doesn't have direct rule over our country. Sure most of the ancient monarchies have fallen, but in our current times, it is crucial that we prevent anything even similar to one man rule is eliminated from the political spectrum.

Second, the president IS arguing that he's above the law. I don't care how many advisors agree with the positions of the President. Plenty of poor leaders have had yes-men to just agree with what they want.

Finally, this statement "we ought to wonder why a court gets to decide what the law is and not the president" comese from someone who doesn't understand the basic tenents of our national government. The purpose of the Executive branch is to "uphold" the constitution yes, but it's an enforcement role. Meaning whenever laws are being broken, it's the role of the President to put an action in force that will stop it. Sure, these powers have broadened since political parties have made the President the leader of his party and the one that sets the agenda, this doesn't ever relate to the President actually making laws. The President makes no laws. He can propose options to Congress, but he can never create a law. The Judicial branch on the other hand has a different role(why do I feel like I'm teaching a fourth grade government class?). The Judicial branch is there to check every law or action against the Constitution to ensure that it abides by the basic rights that our founders laid as the groundwork of our country. Judges also do not make laws. They do however "interpret laws". Meaning they have the ability to tell the President when he's violating the law regardless of what a bunch of loyalist ass kissing advisors claim. They have no authority, the court has ultimate authority. That's what the articles say, not the fourth amendment. Read your constitution and then reread this article. I'm sure you'll agree Ann Althouse is so full of shit that it doesn't matter how "serious" she thinks the President's argument is, wire tapping without judicial consent is a violation of the individual rights of every American. This President's atrocities are just going to keep catching up with him until he's gone. If he leaves in the manner I approve, it'll be in ankle cuffs and an orange jumpsuit.