In an editorial on Monday, the New York Times opined that:

The Obama administration has clung for so long to the Bush administration’s expansive claims of national security and executive power that it is in danger of turning President George W. Bush’s cover-up of abuses committed in the name of fighting terrorism into President Barack Obama’s cover-up.

That is a very reasonable conclusion and one with which I agree, but I would add that we must not overlook the eager participation of another party in the rampant lawlessness of the Bush era. The Congress of the United States was designed, under our Constitution, as the first line of defense against an executive branch accumulating too much power. Sadly, rather than reigning in the abuses of power and the lawbreaking under Bush, the Congress actually became the Bush administration’s chief enabler. Both prospectively and retrospectively, the Congress crafted multiple laws designed to give an air of what Stephen Colbert might term “lawliness” to Bush’s activities. Similarly, the Congress also declined, multiple times, to undertake appropriate oversight activities that could have stopped crimes in progress.

Consider the following list:

Authorization for Use of Military Force – Afghanistan. September 18, 2001. Just one week after the attacks of 9/11, the Congress authorized Bush to use “all necessary and appropriate force” in tracking down those responsible for the planning and/or carrying out of the attacks. Bush, being Bush, was very happy to apply his own interpretation to “necessary”.

The Patriot Act. October 26, 2001. Just six weeks after the 9/11 attacks, and after a “helping hand” from the anthrax attacks brought the last few stragglers on board, Congress passed a law that resulted in massive roll-backs of civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. Re-authorization of some aspects of the act are now under discussion and the odds are not good for improvement.

Authorization for Use of Military Force – Iraq. October 16, 2002. The US formally endorses the Bush Doctrine (hello, Sarah Palin, pay attention) and authorizes aggressive war (a war crime). Little-known Illinois Senate candidate Barack Obama delivers a rousing speech against war with Iraq.

The Detainee Treatment Act. December 30, 2005. Torture begins to be legalized, especially through Bush’s signing statement.

The Military Commissions Act. October 17, 2006. Goodbye, habeas corpus and hello more torture.

Impeachment Off The Table. November, 2006. Before even taking office as Speaker of the House when the Democrats regained control, Nancy Pelosi announced that impeachment of Bush was “off the table”. Although not technically a bill passed by Congress, this announcement by Pelosi was a huge signal to the Bush administration that their crimes were not going to be challenged by the Democratic House of Representatives.

Protect America Act. August 5, 2007. A temporary coating of “lawliness” for Bush’s open flouting of FISA.

FISA Amendment Act. July 10, 2008. Retroactive immunity for warrantless wiretapping was signed into law. This bill marked the debut of “Obama’s cover-up”, as Candidate (and still Senator) Obama changed sides on the issue to support Bush lawbreaking.

Don’t Criminalize Policy Differences and Look Forward, Not Back. November, 2008 through January, 2009. President Obama, following in the footsteps of Nancy Pelosi, tells the world that he will not pursue Bush crimes before he takes office.

I’m sure I’ve missed a few important entries to this list, so I welcome additions in the comments. Efforts to “reform” the State Secrets Act and to prevent disclosure of additional torture photographs from Iraq are underway but not yet signed into law. It also should be noted that for the most part, the courts have upheld their function and when given an opportunity, have mostly ruled in favor of the Constitution and the rule of law, although there have been some exceptions. In contrast, the press has almost completely come down squarely in the camp of the Congressional cheerleading for lawlessness although there are a few welcome exceptions to that trend.

We are now at over eight years and counting, and with turnover many more than 535 have been involved, but the 535 individuals making up the Congress of the United States represent a cohesive force working to lend an air of legitimacy to the lawlessness of the Bush era and the accumulation of massive powers in the executive branch. A few members, such as Kucinich and Wexler, did try to push ahead with impeachment, but they were so ineffective that I see no reason to reduce the count from 535. I don’t see how anyone can argue that our government still has three effective branches serving as checks on one another. As it stands now, the legislative branch enables the accumulation of power by the executive branch.