Federal judge Anna Diggs Taylor declared in a ruling today: “We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no power not created by the Constitution. So all ‘inherent power’ must derive from that Constitution.”
The Justice Department is outraged by the ruling and is racing to appeal it.
I have not yet seen any briefs or other notices that the Justice Department has filed on the decision.  I would expect that they would not make a big deal out of the ‘hereditary king’ aspect of the ruling.  Instead, they will challenge the judge’s decision that Bush’s illegal warrantless NSA wiretaps are illegal and unconstitutional.
The judge noted: “The Government appears to argue here that …. because the President is designated Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, he has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, itself.”
I presume that conservative activists are busy at this moment seeking evidence that this judge has received kickbacks from suspect Muslim charities.  Why else would a judge issue such a reactionary ruling? [[Comments & denunciations on this topic are welcome at http://jimbovard.com/blog/2006/08/17/justice-dept-appeals-ruling-on-no-heridatary-kings/