Allisyn Keyser columnist

Judging from the famous "strategery" sketch on "Saturday Night Live," it is evident that President Bush is not exactly everyone's favorite person. However, the reasons for such high levels of disapproval are rooted in more than Bush's lacking intellect.

Upon close examination of the Bush administration, even the casual observer can discern why Bush is so controversial: Many monumental events have occurred during his time in office, primarily the tragic bombings of Sept. 11 and the "war on terrorism."

As a result of this, George W. Bush has attempted to take the federal government into his own hands, making many decisions independently of the legislative branch to which he is theoretically accountable.

These instances of the president attempting to abuse his authority as chief executive can be found in a study of Bush's presidency, and can account for the vehement negativity toward the president emanated by so many of the American people.

Now I imagine that all of the Bush supporters reading this are probably in the process of sticking pins into a voodoo doll shaped into my likeness, but consider the evidence supporting Bush's dictatorial practices: They began back in 1999, even before he was president.

Mickey Herskowitz, ghostwriting a biography of Bush, was told by the then-Texas governor, "(if elected) I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed." Bush supporters will argue that such determination and confidence are qualities that should be possessed by any leader. However, the bottom line is that it is not the job of the president to pass laws.

As outlined in the first article of the Constitution, the job of passing laws is the responsibility of Congress. If the president thinks that he has the right to pass laws, one has to wonder what exactly the purpose of the legislative branch is. Is it not this idea of government by the people that our wonderful democratic government is based on?

Fast forward to 2001, which we all remember as the year that the terrorist attacks occurred. To his credit, Bush was very effective in uniting the nation against al-Qaida, and proceeded to take numerous measures to prevent such attacks from happening in the future.

The most memorable of these measures was the passage of the Patriot Act on Oct. 24, 2001, which created a brand new score of problems related to civil liberties. Originally passed as a temporary law to help the United States win the war on terrorism, it included a crackdown on national security, which resulted in many Americans having their privacies invaded: The federal government was given the power to intercept private telephone conversations as well as place taps on phone lines if they were believed to be in any way related to terrorism.

Furthermore, the law inadvertently resulted in an increase in the amount of racial profiling, as is seen in two separate instances in March 2003 and April 2004.

Abdullah al Kidd, a U.S. citizen and member of the University of Idaho football team, was arrested as a "material witness" while waiting in Dulles Airport. He was never charged with any crime or used as a witness, yet he was forced to undergo the humiliation of sitting naked in a prison cell.

Additionally, in April 2004, Bush gave himself the right to hold "enemy combatants" prisoner in Guantanamo Bay without giving them the right to counsel or a fair trial because of the nation's "wartime state."

This was, of course, a complete violation of the Fifth Amendment, which describes the right to due process, and shows that Bush is either: a) unfamiliar with the rules of the country he is governing, or b) choosing to ignore them in the interests of promoting his own political agenda.

I could go on about the borderline tyrannical actions being taken by our president (ignoring the U.N. and going to war with Iraq anyway), but I don't want to further feed myself to the hungry conservative wolves. Just consider this before you beat me to a pulp for my radical accusations:

President Bush asserted in a June 18 radio address that our continued presence in Iraq is necessary in order to assure that "Iraqis have ... a chance to show the region what a government that is elected and truly accountable to its citizens can do for its people."

Yet he fails to recognize the hypocrisy apparent in such a claim, since he is attempting to spread democracy to other nations but neglects to perpetuate it himself.

Allisyn Keyser is a physiological sciences and creative writing junior. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.