As we discovered with the Clintons, whether a law was in place to restrain or to enable their power made little difference. They did what they wanted, citing authority as they needed, or invoking the absence of same ("No controlling legal authority"). They ran rampant over our institutions.
It's a question of trust. It's up to the American people to elect public officials who can be trusted with the power of office. The Clintons were a stunning demonstration of what happens when we elect the untrustworthy.
We now have an administration that, instead of arrogating powers, asks for them via the appropriate legislative process. There is a difference.
If you distrust Bush like you distrusted Clinton, you're not making that distinction.
A good point! I do, in fact, have a predisposition to trust Bush. However, it would be much much easier to trust Bush if he didn't appoint a liar to be Secy. of HSA, didn't exhume John Poindexter to riffle through my Amex receipts, and did out the Elian raiders, or arrange to have Horiuchi roped down into a cluster***k in some third world hell hole so he could die a hero, or do SOMETHING - ANYTHING - to add credibility to the process of creating the HSA. Like fire whatsherface at INS. Anything! I'm easy!