Notice an increase in the use of "impeach"?

[A]fter former Nixon White House counsel John Dean suggested that the NSA spying was an impeachable offense, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., sent a letter Monday to some legal scholars seeking opinions.
"This is a country founded on the rule of law," [Rep. Ben Chandler, D-Kentucky], "and (Bush) goes around talking about establishing the rule of law around the world, then he flouts the rule of law here on grounds that he's got to do it to fight terror. We're giving away some of our basic freedoms if we continue to flout the law."
Louisville Courier-Journal (25 Dec 2005)

The slippery slope that Bush has embarked upon leads to a police state, plain and simple.
Bush argues that his powers as a president in “times of war” are plenary – that is, full, complete, without limit. Yet the very soul of a democracy is the equal powers that the three branches of government share, each serving as a counterweight to the messianic impulses that any one of the other branches might dare assume.
How can President Bush claim to want to instill a working democracy in Iraq, while at the same time violating our own U.S. laws, our own system of checks and balances? Terrorism is a serious risk to our nation, but a far greater threat is the centralization of American political power in the hands of any single branch of the government.
The Santiago (Chile) Times (21 Dec 2005)

Some adults in the United States believe legal charges should be sought against their president, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports for AfterDowningStreet.org. 32 per cent of respondents believe George W. Bush should be impeached and removed from office, while 58 per cent disagree.
Rasmussen Reports based on telephone interviews with 1,000 American adults, conducted on Dec. 9 and Dec. 10, 2005. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974.
Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter (19 Dec 2005)

Even some of the conservative press -- the ones that understand honor and rule of law -- are talking about impeachment:
Now the president and his lawyers are claiming that they have greater latitude. They say that neither the USA Patriot Act nor the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act actually sets the real boundary. The administration is saying the president has unlimited authority to order wiretaps in the pursuit of foreign terrorists, and that the Congress has no power to overrule him.
Putting the president above the Congress is an invitation to tyranny. The president has no powers except those specified in the Constitution and those enacted by law. President Bush is stretching the power of commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy by indicating that he can order the military and its agencies, such as the National Security Agency, to do whatever furthers the defense of the country from terrorists, regardless of whether actual force is involved.
Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.
It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law.
Editoral in Barrons (Dec 2005)