Submitted by MRG, Feb 22, 2008 09:17

Our system is built upon three branches of government with checks and balances. Having the courts rule on whether a company illegally cooperated with the executive branch is a check on executive power. Granting immunity would would render the judicial branch impotent in their executive-checking facility.

Contrary to popular belief, our president's first priority is not supposed to be 'to protect the people of the USA'. Our President's first priority, as he swore in his oath of office, is supposed to be to protect the constitution. The three branches acting in mutual oppoisition and in line with the constitution protect the people -not just their lives, but their liberty and their pursuit of happiness.

Maybe you are right, maybe the companies did not do anything wrong and if these issues were brought before a judge, the companies would be found not guilty every time. Maybe the lawsuits brought on the companies are frivolous. But, we have not granted any other person immunity from frivolous law suits. If we want to fix the problem with frivolous law suits, then by all means we should. The solution, however, does not include giving a group of persons immunity.

Now let us suppose you are wrong and not all of the law suits frivolous, but indeed some are merit worthy. Then, passing immunity robs people of justice.

I suggest we leave the check in place for a moment and see if we can't curtail the power of the executive. I find it illuminating how this executive tries and often succeeds in bullying the legislative into submitting to its expansion of powers, and when that does not work, we see the justice department whipping boy give up his integrity to protect big brother. Quite frankly, we cannot afford the executive branch to win more battles -unless of course we'd like a single branched government -the execuslatical from of government.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.