ace....you crack me up
I have said repeatedly in different ways and on different threads that a president has a legal and moral obligation to abide by his oath of office and "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" and should be held accountable for his actions (that does not necessarily mean impeachment in every case).
I would have applied the same standard to FDR and Nixon as I do to Bush and Hillary.
As I understand your position, you believe its ok for a president to break the law ("spy on a few people," for example) if he believes the law is wrong or unilaterally expand the powers of the Executive branch without consulting or informing the co-equal branches of government.
You can post all the examples of past presidents you want and I can respond with other examples that will clearly show how Bush has unilaterally expanded his powers far more than any past president.
We have a fundamental difference that wont be resolved.