I will get to Charles Krauthammer's argument...but first I think it a good idea to get to his bottom line. Like George Will earlier this week he buried it at the bottom of Impeachment Nonsense.

I am skeptical of Gonzales's argument -- it implies an almost limitless expansion of the idea of "use of force"...

Contrary to the administration, I also believe that as a matter of political prudence and comity with Congress, Bush should have tried to get the law changed rather than circumvent it. This was an error of political judgment. But that does not make it a crime. And only the most brazen and reckless partisan could pretend it is anything approaching a high crime and misdemeanor.

I can stop with this, actually. Krauthammer admits Bush "circumvented" the law. His declaration in the next sentence that breaking the law is not a crime when Bush does it is an even more spacious an expansion of Presidential power than Gonzales implies.

But just for the hell of it...

Consider the War Powers Resolution passed over Richard Nixon's veto in 1973. It restricts, with very specific timetables, the president's authority to use force. Every president since Nixon, Democrat and Republican, has regarded himself not bound by this law, declaring it an unconstitutional invasion of his authority as commander in chief.

As an intrusion on the perogatives of the Presidency, the War Powers Act is very problematic. The illegal wiretaps are an intrusion on the powers of Congress, and hence as unconstitutional as the War Powers Act.