George W. Bush’s Disposable Constitution

Beerina said:
Are these actual, operative memos, or just truly "pre-crafted" ones whose purpose is to explore legal explanations for this or that possibility, but they haven't been "activated", so to speak, and never may be?

Not that I agree with the arguments in it, but there's a world of difference between somebody's intellectual exercise and actual operations.
Click to expand...
If you've been following the story over the years, this crowd not only acted on many of these memos, they crafted them as cover before engaging in the activities after the activities were planned.

The most outrageous things which were done:
  • Fired career Republican prosecuting attorneys from the department of justice because they would not carry out politically motivated prosecutions in their districts.
  • Used the DoJ to carry out politically motivated prosecutions.
  • Fired hundreds of career prosecuting attorneys and replaced them with new graduates from Pat Robertson's then unaccredited Regents School of Law. (It has since become accredited but remains a 4th tier college, the lowest ranking.)
  • Implemented wide spread domestic spying programs with the purpose of wiretapping reporters to find out who in the White House was leaking politically damaging information.
  • Leaked their own stories to the Media to influence public opinion including the outing of the CIA agent to discredit Ambassador Wilson's evidence the Iraq-yellow cake story was false and threaten future leakers with similar retaliation.
  • Arrested domestically and held at least one American in a military jail for ~5 years without trial or access to the courts.
  • The whole Gitmo, suspension of habeas corpus, extraordinary renditions, and torture episodes
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Bush wasn't good for this country but that article trashes its own point with that dictatorship comment. Bush certainly came out with amendments I didn't like and ones I wish Obama would discontinue, but his practices were not that of a full-fledged dictatorship whether by lack of initiative or whatever. Bush derangement syndrome at its finest though...
Click to expand...
The point of the dictator reference is that Bush ignored the other two branches of government and acted on the premise the President was separate and UNequal.
 
Brainster said:
The New York Times, that well-known neocon rag, doesn't hyperventilate as much as Scott Horton:



So apparently the dictatorship that Horton obsesses about ended sometime in 2003.
Click to expand...
Are you agreeing then, the memos were acted on?

The opinions reflected a broad interpretation of presidential authority, asserting as well that the president could unilaterally abrogate foreign treaties, ignore any guidance from Congress in dealing with detainees suspected of terrorism, and conduct a program of domestic eavesdropping without warrants.
Click to expand...

And, gee what a surprise, the very people involved claimed they quit acting on the memos:
The memorandum issued by Mr. Bradbury this January appears to have been the Bush lawyers’ last effort to reconcile their views with the wide rejection by legal scholars and some Supreme Court opinions of the sweeping assertions of presidential authority made earlier by the Justice Department.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)
 
Last edited:
BPSCG said:
JJ, I love you. Your posts are devoid of the slightest shred of logic, fact, linear reasoning, and rationality.
Click to expand...


I must be doing something right, I guess, if you're so deeply impressed. Or did you mean somebody else this time?
 
Alt+F4 said:
Lincoln - Proclamation Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus
Click to expand...

Suspending Habeas Corpus is constitutional if the proper channels are used. (I don't remember, did Lincoln use the proper channels?) To give him a little credit, Lincoln was dealing with a civil war. A big one.

Schenck v. U.S.
Click to expand...

An understandable and difficult decision. I'm of two minds on this one.

Korematsu v. U.S.
Click to expand...

Shameful miscarriage of justice.

Doesn't really matter though. Your examples are irrelevant because you are relying on the tu quoque fallacy. The fact that other presidents did potentially bad things does not excuse Bush for doing potentially bad things.
 
Last edited:
jj said:
I must be doing something right, I guess, if you're so deeply impressed. Or did you mean somebody else this time?
Click to expand...
I was afraid that was going to happen. No, you're jj, not JJ. :biggrin:
 
skeptigirl said:
If you've been following the story over the years, this crowd not only acted on many of these memos, they crafted them as cover before engaging in the activities after the activities were planned.

The most outrageous things which were done:
  • Fired career Republican prosecuting attorneys from the department of justice because they would not carry out politically motivated prosecutions in their districts.
  • Used the DoJ to carry out politically motivated prosecutions.
  • Fired hundreds of career prosecuting attorneys and replaced them with new graduates from Pat Robertson's then unaccredited Regents School of Law. (It has since become accredited but remains a 4th tier college, the lowest ranking.)
  • Implemented wide spread domestic spying programs with the purpose of wiretapping reporters to find out who in the White House was leaking politically damaging information.
  • Leaked their own stories to the Media to influence public opinion including the outing of the CIA agent to discredit Ambassador Wilson's evidence the Iraq-yellow cake story was false and threaten future leakers with similar retaliation.
  • Arrested domestically and held at least one American in a military jail for ~5 years without trial or access to the courts.
  • The whole Gitmo, suspension of habeas corpus, extraordinary renditions, and torture episodes
Click to expand...

They also deliberately screened out liberals applying for jobs in the DOJ.
 
KingMerv00 said:
Suspending Habeas Corpus is constitutional if the proper channels are used. (I don't remember, did Lincoln use the proper channels?) To give him a little credit, Lincoln was dealing with a civil war. A big one.
Click to expand...
The only mention of habeas corpus in the Constitution is Article I, section 9, which reads in part:

Section 9 - Limits on Congress
...
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Click to expand...
It was argued that Lincoln did not have the authority to suspend habeas corpus, that only Congress had that power. Congress was not in session at the time that Lincoln had John Merryman arrested. Merryman sued for his release, and Chief Justice Roger Taney heard his complaint (not as part of a Supreme Court hearing). Taney ruled (in Ex Parte Merryman) that Lincoln had exceeded his authority. Lincoln disregarded the ruling, and asked Congress, rhetorically, "Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?"

Congress eventually got around to suspending habeas corpus anyway, so while Lincoln may have exceeded his powers, Congress confirmed the suspension.

I just noticed something. The Constitution says habeas corpus is a privilege, rather than a right. I wonder what that's about...?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
BPSCG said:
The only mention of habeas corpus in the Constitution is Article I, section 9, which reads in part:

It was argued that Lincoln did not have the authority to suspend habeas corpus, that only Congress had that power. Congress was not in session at the time that Lincoln had John Merryman arrested. Merryman sued for his release, and Chief Justice Roger Taney heard his complaint (not as part of a Supreme Court hearing). Taney ruled that Lincoln had exceeded his authority. Lincoln disregarded the ruling, and asked Congress, rhetorically, " "Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?"

Congress eventually got around to suspending habeas corpus anyway, so while Lincoln may have exceeded his powers, Congress confirmed the suspension.

I just noticed something. The Constitution says habeas corpus is a privilege, rather than a right. I wonder what that's about...?
Click to expand...

Ah, memory lapse. I knew Congress needed to approve but for some reason I thought the President needed to sign off on the Congressional act too. Guess not.

I least I was right to say that the suspension of HC is constitutional if the proper channels were used.
 
 
Last edited:
Hmmmmmmmmmm...........

From "The Onion":

Local President Bush Hating Man Decided to become Ex-President Bush Hating Man

January 23rd, 2009, by our Reporter

"We may not have realized it at the time, but in the period from late 2001-January 19, 2009, this country was a dictatorship. The constitutional rights we learned about in high school civics were suspended." said James Smith (35), whose web page, www.ihatepresidentbush.com had recently been moved to www.ihateexpresidentbush.com . In a three-hour interview, Smith said...
Click to expand...

OK, this is a fake fake news item -- it didn't really appear in "The Onion" -- but really, what's the difference (apart from the fact that "The Onion"'s writers intend to write nonsense people will laugh at, that is)?

Even Harper's deadpan satirical style is the same as "The Onion"'s.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
It was???

Damn, all those presidential and local and senate elections -- including the ones the Republicans Bush supported lost -- must have been one big fake.

I also seem to have missed the reeducation camps, the constant unending praise for Bush in the media, and a few other minor things dictatorships tend to have.

I suppose this is the king's new dicatorship: only smart men (who read Harper's, I suppose) can see it.
Click to expand...
I tale it you also have not bothered to find out what this is all about?
 
There is alot of material to read, you can't blame people for being skeptical of claims that use such loaded words.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again; those comparing Bush to Hitler or any dictator are not maximizing Bush's evil or minimizing Hitler's. They are putting themselves in the position of those few brave souls who stood up to Hitler (or any real dictator). It's a new type of self-esteem movement.

This isn't even Maquis apres guerre, it's Maquis sans guerre.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom