Bush - on the Constitition...

[carrrnuttt]

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_7779.shtml

Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'
By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 9, 2005, 07:53

Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that “goddamned piece of paper” used to guarantee.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document.”

Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn’t matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn’t matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine – in the end – if something is legal or right.

Every federal official – including the President – who takes an oath of office swears to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a “living document.”

“"Oh, how I hate the phrase we have—a 'living document,’” Scalia says. “We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake.”

As a judge, Scalia says, “I don't have to prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything else.”

President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a “union between a man and woman.” Members of Congress have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion.

Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of rights.

“We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones,” Scalia warns. “Don't think that it's a one-way street.”

And don’t buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.

But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just “a goddamned piece of paper.”

© Copyright 2005 by Capitol Hill BlueWho is this Thompson guy anyway?

Dis•cuss.

[fredjacksonsan]

Someone will comment on the source. However, regardless of the source....

If true, then Mr. Bush has taken lessons from Saddam. OK so maybe that's a bit harsh, but it conveys the thought.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

Someone will comment on the source. However, regardless of the source....

If true, then Mr. Bush has taken lessons from Saddam. OK so maybe that's a bit harsh, but it conveys the thought.

The source doesn't dignify any comment.

Bush is a sitting President so to impeach him, the House has to indict/impeach him with a simple majority. The Senate which is the jury has to hear evidence to convict him with 2/3 majority vote. It will never happen.

Here is a more credible article from the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/23/politics/23legal.html

Extract/Quote:

"It's probably not going to lead to lawsuits or an indictment," Professor Kerr said. "In all likelihood, the fallout is more in Congress than the courts."


Another from USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...x.htm?csp=N009


Douglas Kmiec, an attorney in the Justice Department under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and now a law professor at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif., notes that the Supreme Court has not ruled out warrantless searches in anti-terrorist cases.

The 1978 law creating a secret warrant process for tapping calls in spying cases within the USA contains an exception in special circumstances.

"To say the president is acting legally or illegally oversimplifies matters," Kmiec says..

President Bush, Kmiec says, appears to be making " a good faith argument ... to comply with the law as written but not disregarding his obligation to protect American citizens."

[Flatrater]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

Someone will comment on the source. However, regardless of the source....

If true, then Mr. Bush has taken lessons from Saddam. OK so maybe that's a bit harsh, but it conveys the thought.

Too late Fred you already mentioned the source of this.

I get a kick out of topics like this because we have forgotten the past. FDR did much worse then the Patriot act. Yet no one mentions how FDR trashed the Constitution with the courts approval. Both walked all over the Constitution by jailing Americans because they had Japanese DNA in them. The Dems need to get off the soapbox because they are as guilty as Bush. If we had antoher attack on American soil and it could have been stopped by our government montioring phone calls made to terrorists in the US you guys would be all over Bush being inept because he did nothing to stop it.

I guess we all fail to realize the information that our newspaper can get without our approval. Recently the NY times wrote a piece on online pedophilia. Here is the list that the NY Times stated they used to write the article.

— copies of online conversations and e-mail messages between minors and the creepy adults;

— records of payments to the minors;

— membership lists for Webcam sites;

— defunct sites stored in online archives;

— files retained on a victim's computer over several years;

— financial records, credit card processing data and other information.

And you guys bellyache about the patriot act. This is a newspaper gathering personal info on everyone without our consent. If the Patriot act was written and approved by the dems I doubt any of you would be whining about it but you would be praising it!

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

Too late Fred you already mentioned the source of this.

Yup. I recognize that the source is somewhat, er, questionable.

I don't care who wrote the Patriot Act, but it has served its purpose. I don't want it to turn into another government idea that started out as a good thing then went awry. It's time that it went away.

I agree about FDR; he was pretty bad. If he hadn't won the war (which, it has been speculated, he assisted in starting but that's another thread) he would have been under the gun.

I'm apolitical; I don't really care which party is in power, and espouse the theory that we should be able to vote for "Neither" in any election; if Neither wins then they start over. Both parties have many good parts/positions, as well as many that IMO are wrong. I don't like being shoehorned, and that seems to be what the current political parties are doing.

There is SCADS of information out there, for the picking. Your point is well taken and points out that the government probably doesn't need the Patriot Act in most cases.

Basically it pisses me off that the president can break the law, talk about it on TV and not raise a hue and cry.

If I did anything like that, regardless of my motivation, I guarantee I'd already be in prison.

[03cavPA]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

---snipped-----

I'm apolitical; I don't really care which party is in power, and espouse the theory that we should be able to vote for "Neither" in any election; if Neither wins then they start over. Both parties have many good parts/positions, as well as many that IMO are wrong. I don't like being shoehorned, and that seems to be what the current political parties are doing.

----snipped----

Basically it pisses me off that the president can break the law, talk about it on TV and not raise a hue and cry.

So vote libertarian. I never for a moment think they have a snowball's chance of winning, but that has become my "none of the above" vote.

Most folks don't go crazy (though they should) when GW dumps on our rights because it makes them feel "safer" to have the feds keeping an eye on the bad guys. The problem becomes a mobile definition of who the bad guys are.

Some day the terrrorists will stop being the bad guys worth watching and ANYONE in opposition to the administration will then be targets, if they aren't already. Don't anyone delude themselves into thinking this is just a GW problem. I can guarantee the Dems will be gung ho for a renewal of the Patriot Act when it's their turn to man the cameras and wiretaps.

[YogsVR4]

Sounds like a kid throwing a tantrum. Though I have several presidents that I despise, I would have a hard time believing any of them would act the way Bush was described in there. I don't doubt that everyone gets frustrated and blows up (saying things they regret) but this is a bit much to swallow.













Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

[thrasher]

It honestly sounds like an article from the onion...I also find it hard to believe that he actually said such things. If he did, well it just goes to show the character of the man.

[BNaylor]

Talk about speculation and the Court of Public Opinion, what Bush did remains to be seen as illegal or a criminal act. Until Congress and the Federal Courts, primarily the Supreme Court, weigh in by taking affirmative action and make rulings in support or against it might be prudent to keep an open mind.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...thammer26.html

I agree with the author of the above article.

Excerpt:
"I also believe that as a matter of political prudence and comity with Congress, Bush should have tried to get the law changed rather than circumvent it. This was an error of political judgment. But that does not make it a crime. And only the most brazen and reckless partisan could pretend it is anything approaching a high crime and misdemeanor." - CK.

In closing, what I find interesting is certain people in this forum and other demogogues that are anti-Bush already have him tried and convicted. The President is entitled to due process.

[thrasher]

Everything that the courts decide is not correct. Besides, why should he be given the benefit of the doubt? He has already knowingly and willfully deceived the American people, and has somehow managed to escape prosection for that. I couldn't care less about bush's political affiliation. That being said, I trust him about as far as I could throw him, and the same goes for my trust in his competence to run this country.

[Flatrater]

Originally Posted by thrasher

He has already knowingly and willfully deceived the American people, and has somehow managed to escape prosection for that. I couldn't care less about bush's political affiliation. That being said, I trust him about as far as I could throw him, and the same goes for my trust in his competence to run this country.

You act like this is the first time a president has done something like this. I have yet to see one president in my lifetime that hasn't re-written a law to suit his needs.

As for his knowingly and willfully decieving that is a matter of opinion.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

You act like this is the first time a president has done something like this. I have yet to see one president in my lifetime that hasn't re-written a law to suit his needs.

And it makes ANY of it right?

[thrasher]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

As for his knowingly and willfully decieving that is a matter of opinion.

Not really, it's a matter of fact. George Tenet has repeatedly said that the CIA never provided the white house with evidence that Al-Qaeda officials had met with Iraqi leaders in the months prior to 9/11, a key point the Bush administration used to connect Al Qaeda to Iraq. Furthermore, no such document has been produced to this day by the administration. In what way is that not intentional deception?

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by thrasher

Not really, it's a matter of fact. George Tenet has repeatedly said that the CIA never provided the white house with evidence that Al-Qaeda officials had met with Iraqi leaders in the months prior to 9/11, a key point the Bush administration used to connect Al Qaeda to Iraq. Furthermore, no such document has been produced to this day by the administration. In what way is that not intentional deception?

To put it into context although George Tenet was a Clinton appointee, he defended the Bush administration. However, it looks like Tenet and his CIA is just as responsible as Bush.

Excerpt:
In a sharp exchange with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, Mr. Tenet said he did not believe intelligence was misused by the Bush administration to launch the war with Iraq.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...2643-5367r.htm

I would agree that the pre-war intelligence left a lot to be desired and hopefully one day we will all find out the truth not blinded by partisan politics or disdain for Bush.

[Flatrater]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

And it makes ANY of it right?

No it doesn't make it right just makes it the norm. But what I wanted to point out was that Bush isn't the only one like some people make it out to be.