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!”
---------------------
Now that statement speaks volumes. If any American is not shocked, appalled, and offended by the president making a statement such as that about the very same document on which we all base our way of life, they are living in the wrong country.
The presidental oath is taken straight from the very same goddamned piece of paper:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Yeah, it's hard to believe Bush would say that about the constitution being that he's always been known to uphold constitutional law to the best of his ability. :atu:
I'm not really for Bush or against Bush or any president for that matter. I really wonder what Bush supporters have to say about thier President saying that about the US Constitution.. So basically we have the leader of the United States with no regards for the principles the US is founded upon.. :fist:
Everyone knows I can't stand the man. Nevertheless, even Bush supporters should be outraged with the president's latest wave of "King George" attitude. The constitution is still the law of the land and we are all subject to it's rules. The president does not have the right to pick and choose which ones he and his aides must obey.
Bush is audacious enough to be outraged over the press leaking the fact that he circumvented the law when authorizing domestic spying, yet when information is leaked by his own staff for the purpose of supporting one of his own causes, he looks the other way.
He is increasingly behaving as though he is following a different set of laws than the rest of us or even his predecessors. He can only push his "war president" powers so far. Despite what he seems to believe, his power is not absolute. Last time I checked, this is still the US of A and that asshole is still working for me and every other US citizen.
I really wonder what Bush supporters have to say about thier President saying that about the US Constitution.
He didn't say it. It's a typical slanderous tactic - put it out there and if anyone calls them on it they can issue a retraction in fine print on the last page, which means nothing since most folks will never see the retraction.
It's like when Clinton said, "The Constitution guarantees me the right to fuck anybody I want, be it taxpayers or fat pigs." It must be true, I never saw the N.Y. Times print a retraction.
It's almost a moot point if he actually said those words. He trashes the constitution with his actions. Actions speak louder. He violated the law and vowed to continue to do it. Impeachable.
I would violate the Constitution to thwart terrorists attacks and the murder of Americans, and I'd except the consequences.
The thing is, Chuck, the law allows the president to legally thwart terrorists and protect Americans, using spying as necessary as quickly as necessary, but it requires that warrants are obtained within a period of time after the fact. The president seems to feel that the law enacted in 1978 covering exactly this issue which was enacted to prevent Nixon-esk type spying simply doesn't apply to him. He's wrong. The very same constitution that empowers him also requires him to follows it's laws. It's right there in his fucking oath.
There is only one reasonable explanation of why he didn't follow the law: He was concerned about being rebuked about his choice of targets. Were all of his targets terrorists or was he also targeting political enemies. (Ala Nixon)
White House Press Release from King George discussing the Patriot Act, April 20, 2004:
"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
Were all of his targets terrorists or was he also targeting political enemies. (Ala Nixon)
With today's technology would it really be that difficult for one politician to eavesdrop on another's phone/emails?
The only real argument is the slippery slope argument, which I fully sympathize with but would take the chance if it meant nailing Muslim terrorists ass.
I say go ahead and spy away to make us safer, but do it the way it's allowed by law. The law doesn't disallow spying. It simply says warrants must be obtained either before or within 72 hours after and apparently they are refused very infrequently. King George seems to feel exempt from the demands of the legal system and the constitution which he has vowed to uphold. What does that make him?
Do you minimize the need and value of upholding the constituion? That is what this matter is all about in case you didn't get that. The lying scumbag in office has wiped his ass with the constitution and some of us give a damn about that.
And yet zero ideas in regards to any domestic or international policies...
Ummm, hint - you tried this in 2000 and 2004...
You do realize that the nation views democrats as absolutely pathetic when it comes to national security correct? Hmmm, would be very curious why on Gods green earth you continue to feel like you have any sort of international ideas - besides preemptive surrender than is...
And yet now you seemed to be concerned again... Funny shit...
Funny thing is, Glen, whenever your boy-king shits himself is some fashon or another, instead of sticking to the discussion on any particular thread, you blather on about something other topic altogether. Why is that?
Linear Mode
