Bush declares himself above the law and the Constitution

Sums it up nicely.

Large chunks of the article, Rob's closing paragraphs, much of what he posts... You know.

not apply to the President? You contend that he has not wiretapped American citizens without warrants as required? You contend that the author of the article is lying and I too am lying? Well aside from yet another personal attack, where's your evidence? I notice that you offer only attacks and allegations, no evidence. With regard to Bush, the evidence has been piling up day by day, the way he declares laws inapplicable when he wants to do something else, and the way he attaches his written instructions for how to apply laws. There's been lots of reporting from lots of sources on everything in that article virtually all of it supporting the contentions. With regard to my own comments, can an opinion be a lie? An opinion can be mistaken, but it can only be a lie if I don't believe that opinion to be true. For the record, I do believe my opinions to be true, and therefore they are not lies.

Bush has been videotaped saying that the President does not have to obey every little law that has been enacted by Congress, that his desire and his will is law (though I admit to loosely but accurately paraphrasing his remarks). Bush has been videotaped saying that he does not need warrants for the wiretaps despite the many laws and legal rulings and precedents that say he does.

Other than that it seems everybody is lying except you Ed. Must be lonely up there.

And whatever happened to the concept of Checks and Balances, to one Branch (the Executive, whom your beloved Founding Fathers distrusted more than any other) not asserting primacy over the others. What has happened to the Rule of Law when the President can disregard any law he feels is inconvenient at any time, which is certainly how this President appears to be operating. If Congress has no power, and the Judiciary has no power, does that mean we now live in a dictatorship? If what they say and do means nothing then only the President and the Cabinet matters, and Democracy has gone out the window.

Nice going Ed, democracy to dictatorship in 5 years. Hope you feel extremely proud of yourself and your President, or should we just call him "Fearless Leader".

Rob

rule as has George W. Bush. Just because in times of extreme threat (Wartime) laws have been suspended at the behest of a President, is not a reason to grant a President the right to conduct government as he, and only he, sees fit. Rule by one man or a small group of men, even with the regrettable presence of an intelligent woman or two, is still a form of tyrrany. If Congress has no power, if the Judiciary and the Laws of the Country have no power, then you have no Democracy.

If you let a few terrorists rob you of your Democratic ideals and rights then you will end up no better than the terrorists you fear.

This begins to look like 1984 with fear eroding any civil rights, and a permanent state of war against unnamed foes allowing the rulers totalitarian power. If Bush can ignore anything he doesn't like, doesn't that make this verging on a totalitarian regime. Just because he was elected (however dubious the elections to some) doesn't mean he can't act like a tyrant.

In this case I have no problem with the National Review source save one. Never have all of these things been done by one President, except now with Bush getting dangerously close to employing the lion's share of them. And some of these laws were abrogated during the Civil War, which was a special instance and inapplicable to the current situation of external threats. To me this looks like 1770 et seq. all over again, but I'm notoriously prone to see historical parallels.

I find it disturbing how cheerfully you all contemplate what is effectively a Dictatorship by the Executive Branch. No Checks and Balances, no Division of Powers, no Legislature, and no Judiciary, everything in Dry Hole Georgie's grubby little hands, and not a hint of nervousness or reflection to be seen. I hope your faith is not misplaced.

And you're wrong about the Left not being interested, the Left is terrified. What's next?

Rob

FDR was "fighting" WW2 well before the population even knew of it. He solely negotiated post-war settlements with Britain and Russia at Yalta.
I'm not saying he was wrong to do what he did or that his decisions were incorrect, but FDR wielded much more power than President Bush.

More dictatorial than FDR and far far more than Bush.

to Liberals, history begins today, and has no relevance to yesterday

Briefly, because it doesn't deserve much consideration:

As an alleged stoont of History you know, or should know that this ia just the latest chapter of a struggle that has gone on between Congress and the Executive practically from the beginning. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson. on through Lincoln supposedly "usurped power", "ignored or violated the Constitution" and became "dictators". etc. Get some perspective.

The wiretap thing has been duscussed and debated ad nauseam here. I am satisfied Bush was within his rights.

Your assertion that the press has no liberalslant is incredibly absurd. You mention the Clinton Admin in your previous post, but I remember all too well that the press basically gave him a Lewinsky before we knew who Lewinsky was. When they attacked they attacked Newt Gingrich, Congress (the other side of the struggle) and Ken Starr mercilessly.

...can an opinion be a lie? Yes.

No more time or energy for your nonsense. Peddle those woof tickets elsewhere.

that Jews were vermin. I don't know about you, but I consider that a lie, and when he expressed that view I think he was lying.

But Hitler at least, actually believed a lot of the noxious bilge he was spewing.

President the United States has ever had, and the biggest threat to the Constitution and its subsequent
Amendments especially the Bill of Rights. His demonstrated contempt for the laws of the land, due process, the respect due the other branches of Government, and the extent to which he has exceeded the actions of any other President in nullifying those laws or ignoring them, or acting in contravention of them and declaring it a perquisite of his position as President is beyond belief. He has virtually declared himself dictator, whatever he wants is law, despite the protections written into the laws and Bill of Rights of the United States. When the history of this Presidency comes to be written, particularly by legal scholars, your analogy with Hitlerite Germany will be one of the first points of reference. What we say now about it: "How could they sit by and let their rights be trampled" will be said in the future of Bush Jr's Presidency.

But I'm interested that you find the slippery slope leading to tyrrany so attractive. If Bush can ignore more than 750 laws on the books what's to stop him ignoring the rest for good and sufficient reason (in his opinion, and apparently yours). Apparently your study of the development of the Constitution has a few gaps in it, and your adherence to the principles of the Founding Fathers is just convenient rhetoric, lip service to be discarded when inconvenient.

Rob

Hitler was of course mistaken, and a tyrant who committed Crimes against Humanity, but I don't think he was lying. As a general principle, to cast any group as vermin is wrong and in general a lie. But lots of people believe lies. You believe Bush served his country honorably after all, and I doubt you're disturbed by the missing time in Alabama, or his jumping the line waiting to get into the National Guard with his bottom 25% aptitude test, though he seems to have been competent enough when he bothered to show up.

But I notice that you can't resist the personal attack yet again. If you have no facts attack the person posting. Pretty lame.

You have exceeded your BS limit. Desist.

We wouldn't know from any of your posts.

Don Erickson
Mr. California Republican

of law, and saying the laws of the land don't apply to you as the President. And how else would you characterize his nearly 800 instances of disregarding laws or bits of the Bill of Rights.

Those aren't lies, they've been widely reported and documented facts. But apparently anything that touches negatively on your beloved God annointed Pres. is a lie.

And to reiterate. To say that a News item is a lie, particularly when it mentions specific instances, is in itself a lie. You may not like it, but as a news item, I have quoted it accurately where I have applied quotation marks. Indeed to assert that I am lying in quoting a news item is in itself a personal attack, business as usual for the truth challenged right, and apparently accepted practice here.

Now I can be provoked into retaliating eventually, but I don't usually start the personal attacks because they're a waste of time and require no intelligence to make. Intelligent refutation is far more work, just don't quote FauxNews or NewsMax or one of those arms of the Conservative movement at me as evidence, because they have a vested interest in perpetuating the lies of this Administration and of the Conservative elements in the US in general.

Best lie they've come up with yet is that all mainstream news reporting is "liberal" biased. What a crock. Like the Press that went after Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were on a liberal crusade.

Rob

Educate yourself in the powers of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. They are all equal in power, but with differences in scope. Congress has been stepping beyond its authority.

Try reading my posts before your knee jerks. I never said the news item was a lie, just your attempt to make it seem as Bush blatantly breaking the law.

to be the leader of our country should have some power? That you don't is scary.

The Presidents have been hamstrung for a long time by Congress, who have practically declared dominion over the country. The rise and abuse of power by legislative and bureaucratic bodies in large empires is not unique to the US... just look to ancient Rome and China for examples. It has given us ridiculous taxes and social policies, laws that are so flimsy that having a team of well-paid lawyers can defeat any law, and a Congress that is fighting over the votes of individuals who are not even citizens.

Historically, the US Presidents had more power than they currently do, Bush is simply attempting to restore the balance.

HE doesn't get to decide which ones to disobey based on the Constitution -- according to Marbury v. Madison, that's the Supreme Court's role. This is one more count in the rapidly growing list for his impeachment once the Dems take the House in November... And, btw, this is a FAR more important breach of an oath than whether Bill Clinton did or did not have sex with that woman...

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

... because Clinton did far worse with searches without warrants.

FISA has been ejudicated by the Supreme Court to have limits.

Congress should look at the Constitution a little more before passing some of the laws.

the man with velcro pants

that of George Bush's disregard for the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the Bill of Rights (the only Bill that's important here)? As pointless an interjection as I've seen here, but please note, I am speaking to your point, I am not attacking you personally.

Now if you could all try to emulate that we might have a forum that worked and didn't need the intervention of Mods or Lee Koo to restore order.

Rob

Which Madison ignored and which was hotly disputed.

As I said in my other post, it's just part of the struggle between Congress and the Executive (as was the Marbury suit to some extent). Bush is asserting what be believes to be his rights UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. You don't agree; no surprise.

To then say he has declared himself above the law, is a dictator, should be impeached, etc. is nothing more than overheated balderdash. As usual.

Bush is not the arbiter of his own rights under the Constitution -- that's what Marbury is all about. When it's an issue of Congress vs. the President, an outside (presumably impartial) arbiter must make the decision, not one of the parties to the dispute. That's Marshall's logic in the case, and it was immediately embraced and has been established precedent for roughly 200 years. THAT's what Bush is flying in the face of -- what he's essentialy stating is his right to exercise dictatorial powers. He is far more dangerous than Nixon ever was, and fully deserving of impeachment.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

He's done nothing wrong. Your opinion and the opinion of a radical minority. Most of Congress is NOT in opposition ot him on this.

Want to let the Supreme Court decide? You haven't a leg to stand on.

To have SE?s legal scholar explain how Marbury V. Madison and habeas corpus are connected as he has suggested before? I know in certain circles, some pompous intellectual types try to impress people by tossing around a famous legal case and slinging out a fancy Latin legal term. Most don?t know the politics behind M v. M and all they know is that that was the precedent for judicial review, but it was also the very beginning of judicial activism