Can the president circumvent the Constitution by executive order? Well, of course he can. But he may not.

This week's "Thumb in the Eye of the People" award goes to the White House, which has turned its mantra toward the quintessential founding document. It, too, is just not Bushie enough!

As reported by the Washington Post, Friday, "Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege."

There, in a nutshell, is what happens when Americans allow themselves the luxury of ignoring the day to day workings of their government. Because, by the time a story is sensationalized for mass consumption, it winds up fitted with all the trappings of popular entertainment. The tendency is to like the person with whom it looks like you could have a beer and dislike the purple, apoplectic person who reminds you of the people who tried to make you learn social studies and grammar.

The propagandists in the executive branch will have an easy time, so long as only perceived kooks and partisans raise the specter of impeachment.

But what conclusion should the ordinary person draw when reading, again from the Post (emphasis mine):  "Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, 'whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.'"

Or, more to the point, if reading it?

Can a general order a captain to ignore the code of military conduct? Can a coach order the team to report two weeks early to a covert training camp? Can a publisher order a reporter to change a story in the archives?

Yes, they all can, but they may not.

The most significant item after president orders justice department to ignore its duty under federal statute, in the widely syndicated story, was the quote from the proverbial un-named high official:  "It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys."

Forget for a moment what Luntzspeak has done to icons and archetypes, nouns and verbs we never knew were up for grabs.

Isn't politics the art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs? I confess to having a rudimentary education so, to be sure, I went and looked it up.

There were no alternate definitions such as anything which makes the emperor look bad though I couldn't get my hands on a copy of the New American Century Dictionary of the English Language.

Ten to one, it's in there.

There was a case in 1984 when Theodore Olson worked up a rationale not to hand over subpoenaed E.P.A. documents. "The President, through a United States Attorney, need not, indeed may not, prosecute criminally a subordinate for asserting on his behalf a claim of executive privilege. Nor could the Legislative Branch or the courts require or implement the prosecution of such an individual."

This argument was never tested by the judiciary, yet it is the cornerstone of the president's rationale this week.

Interestingly, when courts have weighed in, they haven't tipped so favorably toward one branch. Salon's Glenn Greenwald recalled the decision in US v. Nixon which forced the surrender of the infamous White House tapes: "This presumptive privilege must be considered in light of our historic commitment to the rule of law. This is nowhere more profoundly manifest than in our view that 'the twofold aim [of criminal justice] is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer.'"

In dribs and drabs, one signing statement, one executive order at a time, the "Bushie enough" metric, in combination with a more sympathetic Supreme Court and a laissez-faire Republican caucus, has narrowed the opportunity to discover illegal activities in the executive branch.

The Department of Justice is tainted by politics, in the bad sense of the word - no doubt the chord the un-named high official was hoping to strike describing the Judiciary Committee.

Now that they've slipped the noose around old Uncle Sam, all that's left is for George and Dick to flip a coin to see who kicks out the box from under him. Grover Norquist must be beaming.

I would have thought Abu Ghraib, renditions, Guantanamo, Libby's commutation, the bogus election fraud offensive, the nine firings and other usurpations at the Justice Department would have stimulated the Republicans who must run shortly or those with circumspection and objectivity to join with their opposites and convene the Judiciary Committee to impeach. But this week, despite the baby-boomer anthem to the contrary, we the vanWinkles awake to find ourselves fooled again.

The president has ordered his Justice Department not to comply with its statutory duties. The part which makes my point is that it's the Justice Department. At least it used to be. Wouldn't Nuremberg principles still apply?

His/the - when/if - can/may - so much social studies - so much grammar. But this is all inside the beltway politics, right?

A dispassionate reading of the Constitution indicates otherwise. (Article II, Section 4.) What rises to the level of treason against one's country or a system of bribery for the government quid pro quo and is also a high crime or misdemeanor? Besides lying the nation into war and returning the favor in so many ways to the largest of the lobbyists' clients and sources of campaign cash?

How about (to paraphrase) "I order you to disobey the law?" That alone should be multiple counts. But it's like it's Nixon's the one singing "We Won't Get Fooled Again."