A funny thing happened back in 2000: the American people elected Al Gore to the Presidency, but some other guy, originally from Connecticut, took the office instead, after a partisan and unconstitutional intervention from some well-placed friends of his.

That same guy later claimed the right to imprison anyone he chose, without due process, a warrant or even charges, for as long as he chose, and without oversight by anyone. The Supreme Court shot that idea down quickly.

Today, the guy is at it again, claiming the right to wiretap American citizens without a warrant, let alone any court oversight, at his sole discretion and pleasure. Legal justification is something he claims to derive from a congressional resolution that says no such thing. These wiretaps are in direct conflict with the relevant Federal statute.

So here's the question. What limits, if any, are his party playmates willing to accept on his claimed "authority"? Or is that 'separation of powers' thing a quaint concept from before we had one-party government?