Don't even think of asking about the State of the Union! If we were to tell you, that would help the terrorists.

The theme of President Bush's State of the Union address last night was, "Terrorism will just continue to happen, and I'm going to need to keep doing what I'm doing."

President Bush began by defending the War on Terr', suggesting that it has led to democratization in the Middle East. He also put his opponents on the defensive by labeling anyone who disagrees with the War on Terr' an "isolationis[t] and protectionis[t]."

He then defended his illegal, warrantless domestic surveillance program as necessary "to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America." He justified his program by noting, "Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have," which is dubiously true, since the actions of the presidents who used this "constitutional authority" were questionably legal (and there is no such authority in the Constitution; Bush infers from his role as Commander-in-Chief that he has such authority). He also said, "Federal courts have approved the use of that authority." This is what Al Franken calls a weasel statement: a statement that is technically true but is designed to mislead. Federal courts have approved the use of that authority in the past, but they have later been overruled. The final word on the issue is that warrantless wiretapping is not allowed. Also, the statement may be designed to confuse viewers into thinking that a court approved his wiretaps. It didn't. The FISA Court didn't receive any applications for his warrantless surveillance program. The president broke the law; is someone going to enforce the law?

Turning to domestic issues, the president wants to make his tax cuts permanent (a bad idea), and yet he still plans to cut the deficit in half while still spending the same amount of money or more fighting the War on Terr'.

As I've said before, we are also engaged in a War on Math.

Following the failure of his Social Security plan, the president created a commission "to examine the full impact of baby boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid." Okay, Congress, you didn't like my idea, so you come up with something.

Too-little, too-late, the president suggested we should look into alternative fuel sources. This on the same day that Exxon-Mobil reported the highest profits of any U.S. company in 2005. This is a far cry from his 2001 energy strategy, which involved continued reliance on fossil fuels and maybe, someday, a venture into examining the merits of alternative fuels, sometime in the future.

It was a standard-issue State of the Union address. Lots of policy suggestions, lots of self-promoting. "Bushie, you're doing a heck of a job."

But when Bush said the following, I nearly threw up:

I am pleased that members of Congress are working on earmark reform, because the federal budget has too many special interest projects. And we can tackle this problem together, if you pass the line-item veto.

Whaa? Whoosa--? Whaa? Line-item veto? That phrase again? In 1996, Congress gave Clinton the "line-item veto," the ability of a president to veto specific sections of a bill without vetoing the whole thing. The Supreme Court, however, took that away from him; they declared it unconstitutional. Does Bush now think that he has enough clout on the Supreme Court to be able to keep the line-item veto? It was a terrible idea under Clinton, and it's a terrible idea now. You think his "signing statements" are dubiously endowed by the weight of law? Watch what happens when he vetoes whole sections from bills. He won't be abiding by any torture restrictions. Is Bush really so brash as to think that he can get a line-item veto not only passed by Congress, but approved by the Supreme Court? (Curiously, Breyer, O'Connor, and Scalia were the three dissenters in that case -- quite a motley crew.)

This line-item veto thing is something to worry about. Legally, it's wrong, because it gives the president the power of a legislature. The Supreme Court has said as much. But if Bush packs the Supreme Court with enough people who want to see him have a lot of power (like certain brand-new justices, who helped invent the philosophy of the "unitary executive"), well, it's all over for the United States.