In what is now becoming a regular occurrence, a Federal District Judge rejected the Bush Administrations claim that Article II provisions allow the Administration to override FISA law and conduct warrantless surveillance.   This is the third time (out of three cases, other two here and here) the Administrations premise has been rebuked by the Courts and called in violation of FISA and the Fourth Amendment.

Bush 41 appointee, Judge Vaughn Walker, ruled on Al-Haramain v. Bush.  Some background on the case:

The Bush administration argued that the plaintiffs could not prove their case because, to do so, they would have to rely on documents and information that the President deemed to be "state secrets" (i.e., the Government's eavesdropping activities) and which are, therefore, unusable in court. That is the argument the court rejected -- holding instead that Congress, when it enacted FISA, established a procedure that allows even classified information to be considered by a court, and the President's Article II powers cannot override the FISA statute. As the Court pointed out, Congress' core purpose in enacting FISA in 1978 was to bar the President from exercising untrammeled, unchallenged power in the area of eavesdropping. Thus, presidential assertions of secrecy do not override the law. (Link)

This marks the third time a Federal Court has found the President in violation of the law.  Shouldn't one expect some response from folks who are interested in the rule of law?  Why no significant outcry from fans of the Constitution, be they Democrats or Republicans?  The Administration takes the position warrantless wiretaps are necessary but makes no recommendations the Fourth Amendment needs to be revoked or modified.  In other words, the Administrations intention is to continue to violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

Irrespective of whether it's good policy and necessary to provide security in light of terrorist threats (that's a legitimate debate), there's an issue with an Administration that so casually disregards and violates the Constitution. 

David Broder wrote an op-ed piece in the todays Washington Post challenging the conventional wisdom there's a lack of interest in our nations heritage and national identity.

I have not worried about the fundamental commitment of the American people since 1974. In that year, they were confronted with the stunning evidence that their president had conducted a criminal conspiracy out of the Oval Office. In response, the American people reminded Richard Nixon, the man they had just recently reelected overwhelmingly, that in this country, no one, not even the president, is above the law. They required him to yield his office.

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias wonders what's changed between 1974 and now.  He writes, that n 1974, principled Republicans refused to accept criminal conduct on the part of their Party's leader, the President of the United States, Richard Nixon. 

And yet here we are in 2008. And I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that the current President of the United States violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or any number of legal commitments to refrain from torture. Some people think these violations were good policy. Many of those who regard those violations as good policy, also maintain that higher constitutional principles grant the President the right to break the law. Which is precisely what you could say on behalf of Richard Nixon. And Bush, like Nixon, has become unpopular. But Bush won't be hounded out of office.

I'm not exactly sure what accounts for the difference.  I wasn't alive in 1973-74.  I have a vague sense that at that time America's elites operated with some sense of conscience and dignity, and it was taken for granted even among Republican leaders that one couldn't just break the law.

...it's taken for granted that only a lunatic would believe that Bush or any of his henchmen should be held accountable in any way for repeated violations of the law. I don't really know what changed, or why David Broder and other gatekeepers of elite consensus can't see that something's gone wrong here...

I know it's late.  A little over six months and a new president is inaugurated.  And while there are a surprising number of folks who want some accountability from the Bush Administration, any attempt to do so now will be squashed, for different reasons, by a shameful, weak set of Democrats and a shameful, weak set of apologist Republicans.  Who would have thought there were so many brave Democrats and Republicans just 34 years ago.