has probably influenced me more than any other legal scholar, and his brilliant work on "The Second Bill of Rights" is very important reading, in my opinion.

With that said, I really don't understand how he could be so off-base here. I, like him, do not consider myself a "libertarian" and occasionally have disagreements with the ACLU, etc. But to dismiss the Presidents actions here as "a libertarian panic" is bizarre. As Armando has noted here and elsewhere, what we have here is a concerted effort to aggrandize the role of the Executive beyond all Constitutional recognition.

Anyway, one additional question for Prof. Sunstein: even if Sunstein's legal analysis is correct (which it is not), does he have no problem with the President failing to reveal his actions, and in fact attempting to cover them up as much as possible?

Shouldn't a President who makes the individual determination that he is not bound by an Act of Congress (and takes a peculiar reading of the Constitution) explain to the nation why these actions were justified and necessary, rather than cover them up? Even if the imminent danger of total nationwide attack percieved immediately after 9/11 justified these actions, the President should have explained what he was doing and why right after the perceieved imminent danger of nationwide attack abated.