Defining the terms is an important step. While I obviously haven't seen the President's classified memo which ostensibly outlines his legal authority to assassinate an American citizen believed to be an active traitor to the U.S., nothing I've read about it suggests any limits to this power. The President could decide an American involved with Mexican cartels falls under its logic, or one protesting a U.S. corporation's business practices in a Third World country.

While it's by far not all, it seems to me that a number of people around the country who insisted Bush's assertion of the power to designate foreign nationals in U.S. custody "enemy combatants" and detain them for the duration of hostilities was unlawful are also confident that Obama's assertion he can designate Americans as enemy combatants and order their assassination by a civilian agency are lawful.

Then, too, there are those who thoughtlessly accepted and supported Bush's assertions that are outraged by Obama's.

That's the age we live in. The Age of Team Politics.

But those for whom partisanship shapes thinking aren't (hopefully) going to decide the legality of a President's exercise and assertion of power.

“Nobody has a legitimate reason to fear a faithful interpretation of the Constitution, and nobody has any legitimate reason to fear effective and complete protection of civil rights." - Alan Gura