gvbest,

The Washington Post printed the entire transcipt of the hearing. The reply of Gonzales which I copied and pasted was in answer to a softball (and misleading) question by Sen Grassley about Presidents acting in their capacity as Commander in Chief.

Part of the strategy of the Bush Administration in gaining extra-Constitutional powers is to claim that such powers are inherent in the position of Commander in Chief.

The pertinent section of the Constitution reads:

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States..."

There is nothing in the Constitution that makes him Commander in Chief of our nation. The Constitution is clear that the powers of the President acting as CIC are solely as a military commander. Commander in Chief is a military command position.

Aren't you presently serving our county in the active duty military, GVbest? If that's right, President Bush is your Commander in Chief. Although he may desire it to be the case, he is not Commander in Chief of any civilian and is not Commander in Chief of the United States of America.

According to the Constition of our great nation the powers of the President acting as CIC are narrow and limited. The CIC is at the top of the military command structure. Nothing less. Nothing more.

The position of the President as CIC establishes civilian control of the military. In no way does it expand the President's powers in his capacity as chief executive.

That being the case, Bush's claim that his electronic surveillance of civilians without a warrant is justified by his position as Commander in Chief is the logical equivalent of saying that the military can conduct electronic surveillance of civilians without a warrant.