It's crazy, right?

It doesn't take a genius to understand that members of this Administration aren't strict constitutionalists. Their overwhelming dismissal of the Bill of Rights is understandable; they're Republicans.

Since the 60s, the GOP has railed against "substantive due process" and "activist courts" whenever a court issues a ruling that expands the rights of a few over the rights of many. When courts struck down miscegenation laws in the 60s, conservatives decried it as federalism run amok as they did with desegregation and gender bias. They hated affirmative action, civil rights, women's rights, voter's rights, rights of the accused, a woman's abortion rights and the rights of the minority to be free from the religious expressions of the majority.

They attacked each expansion of individual rights as favoring federal power over state power.

But when they gained all three branches of the government in 2001, Republicans changed their minds about federalism. The president has pushed for federal legislation to overturn state laws that allow gays to marry, cancer patients to use marijuana and set pollution standards.

But those things are really just politics as usual. The states they were opposing in these cases are either overwhelmingly blue states, or they have a history of being moderate.

But Thursday's revelation in the USA Today that the NSA is tracking "thousands, maybe millions" of domestic phone calls is the proves that this administration ignores the Constitution.

According to Voice of America, "The technique the NSA is reportedly using is known as "data mining" and has long been utilized by commercial businesses. Companies gather data on consumers' buying habits to track product popularity. For example, using a discount card at a store tracks purchasing patterns, which helps companies create and market products."

Examine this argument for a second. The administration is trying to compare what the grocery store does when the consumer uses an opt-in service and compare it to examining the records of private citizens using a public utility. I know when I get groceries that the company keeps track of this data. I get coupons in my mail and email. I don't know if the NSA has any records on me -- they probably do; I'm a liberal loudmouth and I have an Arab-sounding last name -- but I never gave them permission unless they're somehow part of the Men's Wearhouse club or the Frequent Readers card.

But what got lost in the mix last week with these latest revelations was the White House's use of Presidential signing statements wherein he obviated the purpose of 750 laws by declaring the executive branch above the law. The most dramatic case comes in the McCain torture ban. According to the Boston Globe, the White House "can ignore ... military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, "whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research."

For example, when Congress created the Institute of Education Sciences in the Department of Education in 2002 whose director was by law permitted to conduct and publish research "without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department," Bush declared that all employees in the department come under his authority. Of course last week investigators from the Justice Department revealed that the NSA had ignored requests for information. Effectively the White House is saying that it runs everything in the executive branch, even those agencies that are empowered to be independent of interference. W. is using virtually the same arguments that Nixon used during the FBI investigation of the Watergate break-in.

Last year while covering hurricane relief efforts in Mississippi I met a guy who I considered more than a little paranoid. He told me that the White House was listening to his phone calls. He said that they tracked who he called and how long he talked to folks. As crazy as he sounded, it appears now that he could have been right.

I just hope he's delusional about his other prediction. I mean it's a crazy thought right out of survivalist pulp fiction. He predicted that W. would find a way to stay president beyond the 2008 elections by creating a constitutional crisis effectively ending democracy in the US.

Crazy. Right? RIGHT???