Another Bush Constitutional Outrage

[KazooSkinsFan]

Yet another George Bush Administration Constitutional outrage. As I have maintained I “criticize” the left more because their dialog is more outrageous. I vote for neither because in the end their policies are identical. The Justice Department is in court arguing DC’s gun laws should be upheld again agreeing with the Left that the simple statement “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” should simply be ignored.

The Left parses “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” and makes ludicrous claims like that the Bill of Rights is giving the National Guard, or the government the right to bear arms. Reading the amendment in its entirety leaves no doubt whatever they meant it was explanation and not qualification of the right, making parsing the explanation irrelevant to a critical mind.

The Bush administration, same policy, different tact, is arguing “public safety” as justification to ignore the Constitution. This is a fallacious use of the concept that for example “limits” free speech for things like yelling fire in a crowded theater or for slander or libel. Those are uses of speech that undermine other’s rights while not benefiting the speaker, clearly not the intent of the 1st Amendment. On the other hand DC gun laws restrict complete ownership of guns even on private property, clearly in violation of the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

This hand in hand George Bush and the Left ignoring the Constitution is unfortunately par for the course.

- George Bush signed “campaign finance reform” which restricts free speech heading into elections.
- George Bush ignored the 9th and 10th Amendments in attempting to overturn Oregon’s assisted suicide laws, the No Child Gets Ahead program, adding a prescription drug “benefit” and continued to grow to our elderly welfare programs we refer to as “Social Security” and “Medicaid” and has done nothing to curb the power of government or the myriad of existing programs Congress had no Constitutional authority to create.
- While George Bush spoke against the violation of the 5th Amendment in the New London confiscation of land for private and not public use, he followed up by doing nothing about this flagrant violation of one of our most basic rights to private property.
- He's violated he 4th and 6th Amendments in providing warrants for searches and speedy trials for American citizens accused of terror. The Left claims it applies to foreign citizens never in the US is absurd. That it applies to US citizens in the US is dead on.

And then he has continued the Clinton and prior administration policies of undeclared wars across the globe and the inevitable placing ourselves as the target of choice for the world’s wackos. There is truly no difference between the parties. And I mean that in a real way, not like the Left who hypocritically attacks him for the policies they employ themselves in every real way to win elections.

[welch]

More or less continuing the discussion begun by Irn-Bru, that last was at

http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic. ... &start=190

It seems to me that the most serious violation of the Constitution has been the Bush administration's repeated attempts to insist that the office of the president has something like authoritarian monarchical powers.

Two examples:

- creation of new courts by the executive and governed by rules created by the executive. Argument by the Justice Department that the President, and only the President, has the authority to decide who falls under the jurisdiction of the terror tribunals. Would give the president the power to declare any US citizen a terrorist and try them before the special courts.

(Interestingly, US military lawyers and judges have insisted on following normal anglo-american rules and process, even though it is not a good career move to block the whim of a president.)

- argument in July/August, 2002, that the president does not need an act of Congress to go to war. Administration argued that the decision is an "implied power" derived from the president's role as commander in chief. Constitution, of course, says that only Congress can declare war. By custom, a president gets a resolution from Congress even for mini-wars, such as the first Gulf War and the Kosovo campaign.

(Bush administration backed down, "sold" the second Gulf War to Congress.)

In all, a "long train of abuses" tending toward making the presidency a kind of plebisictory dictatorship. While in office, a president has the same power as Louis XIV. Every four years, we elect a new absolute monarch.

A long way from what the Founders and Framers intended. "A republic...if you can keep it", said Franklin.

[Countertrey]

More or less continuing the discussion begun by Irn-Bru, that last was at

http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic. ... &start=190

It seems to me that the most serious violation of the Constitution has been the Bush administration's repeated attempts to insist that the office of the president has something like authoritarian monarchical powers.

Two examples:

- creation of new courts by the executive and governed by rules created by the executive. Argument by the Justice Department that the President, and only the President, has the authority to decide who falls under the jurisdiction of the terror tribunals. Would give the president the power to declare any US citizen a terrorist and try them before the special courts.

(Interestingly, US military lawyers and judges have insisted on following normal anglo-american rules and process, even though it is not a good career move to block the whim of a president.)

- argument in July/August, 2002, that the president does not need an act of Congress to go to war. Administration argued that the decision is an "implied power" derived from the president's role as commander in chief. Constitution, of course, says that only Congress can declare war. By custom, a president gets a resolution from Congress even for mini-wars, such as the first Gulf War and the Kosovo campaign.

(Bush administration backed down, "sold" the second Gulf War to Congress.)

In all, a "long train of abuses" tending toward making the presidency a kind of plebisictory dictatorship. While in office, a president has the same power as Louis XIV. Every four years, we elect a new absolute monarch.

A long way from what the Founders and Framers intended. "A republic...if you can keep it", said Franklin.

Bush is merely continuing the long executive tradition of ignoring the Constitution, and making his own rules. Nothing new.

The problem is not the Executive. It's not even the Legislative. It is the courts. which have permitted themselves to become whores to the political whims of the two parties. Being manipulated into creating rights that don't exist. Ignoring the existence of the 10th amendment.

Those in power will always do what they do. It is the job of the courts to protect the constitution from thier manipulations. That failure is the real crime.