Bush should brush up on Constitution
It was reported in December 2005, by a DOUG THOMPSON who seems to even-handedly zing politicians on both sides that when discussing renewing the Patriot Act the following discussion occured (and the discussion has been confirmed by several administration sources):
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!"
Given that attitude toward the document Mr. Bush has twice sworn to protect & defend, how can anyone think he will start paying attention to it now?
Posted by Mary on April 30, 2007 04:01 AMmary you need to stop quoting cnn and the howard deans of the world. but then you are one of the far left liberals who love to make up laws and say someone broke them.
maybe the both of you should read the constitution instead of cnn telling you what they want it to say.
6:46 AM
Mary has done an excellent job of posting.
Obviously, you haven't read much - if any - of the Constitution yourself. But that's par for the course with Republicans.
Posted by Diogenes on April 30, 2007 06:59 AMMichael, FYI, anyone slightly left of Barry Goldwater is not a far left extremist liberal.
Posted by holyreality on April 30, 2007 08:38 AMPBS (Ch. 6 & 12) are about all the TV I watch; I heard the same quote on Ch. 12: The Constitution "is just a goddamn piece of paper."
Posted by Richard Grimes r22037@yahoo.com on April 30, 2007 09:48 AM6:46AM
King George's disdain for the Constitution, or anything else that challenges his "my way or the highway", narrow vision of governing, is well-established. Bush's actions are all the evidence anyone needs of his Constitutional disdain. Your Faux News/O'Reilly talking points are nothing but long-winded hot air.
Posted by Beavis on April 30, 2007 10:27 AMI would 100% agree with Mary on the Patriot Act. That is something that needs to be brought before the Supreme Court. It is ashame that Congress overwhelming passed and then renewed it.
However, when it comes to war and war powers, maybe the authors need to do a MUCH better job of reading the Constitution.
The Legislature is responsible for:
"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
Whereas the power of the President are well defined as well:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; "
I know that it is hard to understand for a lot of people, so I will break this down. Congress is granted the right to declare war, and fund such war, for no more than 2 years at a time, and to MAKE SURE that the fighting force has the necessary supplies, as will be asked for by the Commander in Chief.
The rest of the power shall be inherent in the President of the United States as Commander in Chief, which means he shall order them into combat as he (or maybe someday she) sees fit.
For all that are against this war, there are many legitimate reasons to feel as you do. But you can not factually argue that the war in Iraq is unconstitutional, illegal, nor an abuse of the executive powers, or legislative function of Congress.
Posted by Dan2 on April 30, 2007 10:29 AMDan2, ty again for the posting. I am more then a little ashamed of the Democrats who voted to give the presidend the ability to go to war. Of course Bush made the ultimate decision, but if the Dems had been able to hang tough, well, who knows.
The Constitution is a little like the Bible, open to interpratation. That is why we have a Supreme Court. Some passages are crystal clear, some are murky.
It is Bushs distain for the document that angers people. Who heard him say "it is just a piece of paper"?
If he didn`t say that, we should stop quoting it.
Posted by Sharon B. on April 30, 2007 11:32 AMSharon,
I have not heard that quote, but there are so many "acts" that go against the Constitution, that it boggles my mind.
I just try to help out on subjects that I know something about. The Constitution is one of them.
Posted by Dan2 on April 30, 2007 12:54 PMDan2,
That little bit about, "To raise and support Armies; but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two years", is interesting. Congress is suggesting a time table - or beginning date - for ending the Iraq fiasco. Now the wording of the Bill may not abruptly say: "Funding ends at Mindnight XX,XX,2009"; but what has been said IS WITHIN CONGRESS'S right, to limit funds, or to indicate a funding time limit.
Bush demands a blank check, from "here to eternity" if he wants it that way. And keeps on insisting that he'll get that blank check, or accept nothing; but keep on keeping on just the same.
Perhaps the man's "war powers" are't quite as extensive as they are being portrayed. And perhaps the Constitution is just the place in which the limits can be found. Which may be just one reason why the man keeps deriding it, degrading it, ignoring it, and ultimately trying to destroy it.
Posted by Old Grouch on April 30, 2007 02:05 PMOG,
You are just wrong on your interpretation of Congress's "power of the purse." Congress needs to reconvene and may budget funding for 2 years, at a time, but not more than 2 years (which is why the uninformed keep saying Bush should have "made the budget request when the war started"). As is the President's job, he submits his budget to the Congress for approval, and they then appropriate that money. The President, as part of the "checks and balance" has the power to veto it, and Congress than has the power to over-ride the veto with 2/3 majority.
The President, as Commander in Chief, has ultimate authority on deployment of troops. That is his constitutional guarantee. Congress, with a Super Majority, has the power to limit the Commander in Chief, but will indeed need a super majority to do so, because the President has the power of veto.
But with the Authorization of the President to use the armed forces in Iraq actually states (as required by the War Powers Act and the Constitution):
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
As such, the President was authorized to do what HE DETERMINES TO BE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE...
Anything else is just whining now.
Posted by Dan2 on April 30, 2007 03:27 PMDan 2,
Being somewhat "technical" in seeing additional potentials in the essential checks and balances is "whining"?
Well, that's neither here nor there.
Certainly, there is the power of the Veto. And the check and balance of the override of the Veto. But, there is also the additional power - even if seldom if ever used - and that's the one of not appropriating funds at all.
Congress does not have to fund.
Now, all the rhetoric about "support the troops, morale, win the battle/war" etc., aside:
Even with possible (even probable) numbers enough to sustain a Veto of a funding bill he doesn't like - which are there in this session, as they have been before - a President cannot DEMAND funding "his way, or no way", and absolutely get it. There is no "or else" part to that.
And, several times in the past, the government has been shut down BECAUSE that power, - to refuse to fund at all, without some form of serious mutual compromise - has been invoked by the Congress. Perhaps not directly in response to the conduct of a President's war, but certainly in times when a war of some sort was around.
My own Constitutional Law classes are, of course, something over half a century past. But, the essentials haven't changed all that much. Just the way in which they are avoided, or obfuscated, for the sake of rallying the mob, perhaps.
Or, as one Professor put it: The power to tax - and fund by appropriation - is (or can be) the power to destroy, true. But the power to refuse to tax, and/or to make no appropriation can destroy as well. The one power may affect many, even the common good; while the other insures that the common good will prevail over the interests of the party alone. (Not by any means eidetic, at this distance; but something that has stuck in the mind for quite some time now.)
As a "whine", I'll close with that.
Posted by Old Grouch on April 30, 2007 08:17 PMHey idiots,read the constitution.You will find Bush has followed the constitution and all laws,nothing illegal.The dems. in congress have broken too many laws to list.You people will never know the truth unless you do research for facts instead of listening to lieing dems.
Posted by Keith on May 1, 2007 10:15 AMYo Sharon: Go to ask.com and type in Bushisms. Yo
Posted by Richard Grimes r22037#yahoo.com on May 1, 2007 10:17 AMKeith, you are such a tool!! Take your Rethuglican talking points and shove them up your ass, idiot.
Posted by on May 1, 2007 10:54 AMOG,
Your Professor was quoting (or maybe paraphrasing) Chief Justice John Marshall in McCulluch v. Maryland, but that is not the issue. I agree wholeheartedly that Congress has every right to withhold funding, or not fund as the President desires. The implications of such an action would probably be political suicide though, as there are 130,000 active duty troops in Iraq and the perceived lack of compassion for the troops would not be a smart thing to do.
I don't think we are in too much disagreement in regards to the Constitutional responsibilities of the branches of government. But, maybe we are more in disagreement with the reasons and causes for going to war in Iraq, and the differences you and I have in what should happen now?
I think we are seeing that compromise, between this President and this Congress will be the way for resolution. If either the administration tries to hold out, or the Congress does, I think that it will be terrible for the country, and will be in all of our best interests to reach a compromise. But, as Keith stated, in his rather rough and tumble way, the Constitutional separations of the branches are within their limits.
Posted by Dan2 on May 1, 2007 11:16 AMDan 2,
The problem lies more in the way in which both sides view the Constitution, as I see and hear it anyway.
For Bush, the Constituion is "just a piece of paper", if it comes down to something HE wants.
For the Democrats, the Constitution provides a "leverage" to exert in order to get to a compromise - however poorly the bill with the withdrawal date attempted to apply that leverage.
Keith did put it bluntly. "The dems in Congress have broken too many laws to list."
(Nothing by way of concrete evidence there, of course; but typical Republican response.)
What potential for compromise in that kind of thing?
But, that takes us too far off the topic, I'm afraid. We'll just have to wait and see, while hoping against hope that the consequences are avoided, I guess.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 1, 2007 01:24 PM
old grouch,the bill that dems. are trying to pass right now is unconstitutional and basically treasonist.
What I have witness in congress is a plan attempted take over of the presidents power that is not allowed by the constitution. The president is comander and chief the congress is the purse. If congress wanted to stop the war they only have one option cut the purse but they do not want to do that they would lose the House and Senate if they do that. So they play the near treasonous political game of testing the constitutional power and seperation of powers and the Media plays along with the game.
Posted by Joseph V Seifert on May 3, 2007 08:04 AMBy the way the difference between Dems and republic is
Dems see the Constitution as living document up for interputation.
Republic see the Constitution as what it is the founding Document easy to read and understand.
Which is why we should dis-band the Supreme Court, since all interpretation is over. That easy to read and understand document keeps 9 people employed.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 3, 2007 03:59 PM