We, the voters, want to know what they think of the usurpation of powers by the current president; whether they would restore the constitutional division of power among the three branches of government, or would they take advantage of the measures that have been taken by George W. Bush which would make the new president a virtual dictator? Would they take steps to end the loss of our civil rights as to wire-tapping, internet monitoring, and other intrusions into our personal lives? These are vital questions to many of us and the answers are extremely important, not only in the general election but now, in the primaries.

It has been nearly eight years since the US Supreme Court violated the Constitution by installing George W. Bush as president. Their ruling was immaterial. They shouldn't have agreed to hear Bush v. Gore in the first place. Under Article II of the Constitution, Federal courts don't have jurisdiction in election disputes. The state supreme courts — in that case, Florida — have the final word.

When a ruler seizes office by extralegal means he rules the same way. Because he does not derive his power from the people — indeed, his rule relies on their passivity — he is not beholden to them. Selling the public on his policies is hard enough for a legitimately elected ruler; an illegal one has to resort to bullying, presented as a stern, autocratic triumph of the will. He is forced to order his lawyers to find legal loopholes using the most tortured reasoning imaginable. In the end, when citizens turn against him, the tyrant shrugs his shoulders. "So?" This is what the vice president replied when a reporter asked about polls showing that Americans have turned against the Iraq War. Cheney's question was perfectly reasonable. Why should he care what we think? We didn't elect him. He doesn't owe us the slightest consideration.

Electoral illegitimacy begets illegitimate rule: Secret detentions and torture redefined into meaninglessness. Secret prisons. Ending habeas corpus, the right to have one's case heard before a judge — a right English-speaking people had enjoyed for 800 years. Secret "signing statements" purporting to negate laws signed in public. Spying on Americans, lying about it to Congress, and then, after getting caught, trying to legalize it retroactively. Destroying evidence. An executive order granting the president the power to declare anyone — without evidence — an "enemy combatant," then order that person imprisoned for life, or even assassinated.

Gallup found that 72% of Americans disagreed with this statement: "The majority of those living in Muslim countries thought men and women should have equal rights." In fact, majorities in even some of the most conservative Muslim societies directly refute this assessment: 73% of Saudis, 89% of Iranians and 94% of Indonesians say that men and women should have equal legal rights. Majorities of Muslim men and women in dozens of countries around the world also believe that a woman should have the right to work outside the home at any job for which she is qualified (88% in Indonesia, 72% in Egypt and even 78% in Saudi Arabia), and to vote without interference from family members (87% in Indonesia, 91% in Egypt, 98% in Lebanon).

What about Muslim sympathy for terrorism? Many charge that Islam encourages violence more than other faiths, but studies show that Muslims around the world are at least as likely as Americans to condemn attacks on civilians [terrorism]. Polls show that 6% of the American public thinks attacks in which civilians are targets are "completely justified." In Saudi Arabia, this figure is 4%. In Lebanon and Iran, it's 2%.