King Charles I vs Hastert

King Charles I of England back in the 1640’s declared war on his own parliament and thus began the theory behind the separation of powers. Back then it resulted in a civil war in England but I don’t see that happening here. Hastert is up against that same ideology from President Bush and as a man that is sworn to defend the Constitution Hastert has to stand his ground. Even if it seems to the outside world that he is being self serving to protect his fellow members of the house from criminal investigation. Hastert should not be standing there alone taking all the heat for it either. Now is the time for all of the true defenders of the Constitution to stand and be counted with him.

This whole scenario is ultimately about a grab for more power by the President and that is never a good thing. Ultimate power corrupts. I thought it was kind of funny that some folks over at the Washington Post were not sure if Bush even broke any laws in this situation. Should we start a new list for each category or can we just add on to the one that ran in the Boston paper?