This is an important and interesting interview of Michael Ratnor, who is a legal expert. It reviews former President Bush’s legal memos regarding his position during the war against terrorism.

This is a biased report. The only source is Michael Ratner and legal evidence that was presented. And every word is true. Bush/Cheney/Rumfeld and co. tried and did circumvent the Constitution.For the life of me I can't understand why this is not being investigated by a special prosecutor with unlimited powers that where giving to the infamous Mr. Starr.

This article certainly lends credence to the idea that charges of treason could legitimately be brought against W. and members of his administration. Unfortunately the political will (and courage) to do so probably does not exist.

Wolf and Ratner here provide a strong and pointed dialogue examining particular points in the constitution, particularities of the bush papers, and a rich history of such events that should continue to be a strong warning, which seems to be in the process of being slow-walked instead of expedited.

Strong stuff, supporting the belief the war on terror was a means to subvert the Constitution. Endless war, there it is. . .

And no doubt Obama's birth certfiicate is forged. Why waste time with conspiracy nuts?

Yes it is quality journalism, because it is taking on and revealing unprecedented corruption in the previous administration which the mainstream press is incapable or under corporate oders not to expose to the level of the seriousness of the criminal intent.

The author is credible, and the opinions expressed are based on the interviewee's professional legal knowledge of the U.S. Constitution. The opinions are outside of the mainstream, but provide a thought-provoking perspective that adds the debate on an important topic. It's the rhetorical flourishes that degrade the reader's trust, not the perspective.

It's a compelling interview but the authority of Micheal Ratner isn't established, so his assertions about his review of the memos are subjective assessments and not definitive truths.

This article presents informative facts to the public at large.