The New York Times on the unconstitutional wiretapping:

“The administration has gone a long way in the last couple of days to assure people that this highly classified program is critical to the protection of the nation,” Mr. Hatch said. “I think they’ve more than made a persuasive case. The real question is how do we have oversight?”

In part, the backlash is a symptom of Congressional muscle flexing; a sort of mutiny on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers have been frustrated by the way Mr. Bush boldly exercises his executive authority.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who has also criticized the program, said Ms. Wilson’s comments were “a sign of a growing movement” by lawmakers to reassert the power of the legislature.

“This is sort of a Marbury v. Madison moment between the executive and the legislative branch,” Mr. Graham said in a reference to the 1803 Supreme Court decision in which the court granted itself the power to declare laws unconstitutional.

“I think there’s two things going on,” said Mr. Graham, a Judiciary Committee member. “There’s an abandonment of you-broke-the-law rhetoric by the Democrats and a more questioning attitude about what the law should be by the Republicans. And that merges for a very healthy debate.”

Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, said: “I don’t think anyone wants any kind of constitutional showdown over this. We want the president to succeed, but the fact is we are a coequal branch of government and we have serious oversight responsibilities.”

I haven’t abandoned the ‘you-broke-the-law rhetoric, have you? I’m insulted that Graham would be so dismissive to suggest it’s a rhetorical argument at all.

It’s about being a nation of laws. And having a President willfully breaking those laws, with arrogance and conceit. There is no debate about what he did. Because he publicly reassured the country that every wiretap had judicial review while simultaneously running a hidden program, it’s clear he understood what the Constitution required.

And the Constitution defines the sole response to such a lawbreaker, without a doubt. The only debate is the one-sided one where Republicans try to convince a majority that a mere handslapping provides a perfect end run around the constitutional remedy.

The GOP congressional soft-shoe routine being paraded now is nothing more than an effort to help the President and his party weasel out from under the weights on the scales of justice. But the Constitution offerred no alternate options. If Bush committed a ‘high crime or misdemeanor’, he should be held to account, impeached and tried.

The law doesn’t permit us to make it up as we go. It’s not an improv routine, nor subject to anyone’s whims or certitudes.

The debate is over. Bush is a criminal. The only open question is whether the legislative and judicial branches have a similar disinclination to uphold the law.