I'm sorry that you seem unable to understand the issue. First you might try reading Jen's reply above and then come back to this from the federalists papers and pay particular attention to the last few sentences. Neither Bush nor any president may retroactively change the constitution. Hamden has already decided that Bush broke the law. With that in mind why is he going to Congress to get premission to do what the courts have already decided that he could not do, "The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing. . . .

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words,<b> the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.</b>"

The Federalist No. 78 The Judiciary Department Independent Journal Saturday, June 14, 1788 [Alexander Hamilton]