I've just started to read this book recently and this set of paragraphs stopped me.

p 35 "OLC also needn't look at legal problems the way courts do. Most Americans (including most lawyers) think the law is what courts say it is, and they implicitly equate legal interpretation with judicial interpretation. But the executive branch does not have the same institutional constraints as courts, especially on national security issues where the President's superior information and quite different responsibilities foster a unique perspective.

What! I believe that most Americans would not cotton to the idea that the executive branch operates outside the courts system. And, after the fiasco of the Bush administration, would one EVER categorize his information as *superior*?

..For many issues of presidential power there are no controlling judicial precedents. The Supreme Court has never resolved whether the President can use force abroad unilaterally, without Congressional authorization.

Why not?

When OLC writes its legal opinions supporting broad presidential authority in these contexts,... they cite executive branch precedents (including Attorney General and OLC opinions) as often as court opinions. These executive branch precedents are *law* for the executive branch even though they are never scrutinized or approved by courts.

Here lies the failure of our democracy. Americans want the law to