Under Bush the Constitution was "just a goddamned piece of paper."

1. 74

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   Every day we hear from hubbers about how Obama is out to destroy the Constitution. Across this great nation there is a movement of very vocal, very serious "pro-contitutionalists."
   The Constitution is suddenly quoted and defended like the Bible.
   It's all the vogue -- ALL OF A SUDDEN.
   My question is: Where were all these people during the Bush years? 8 years of Bush/Cheney running roughsod, living above the law. Why did we not hear a massive outcry from these champions of the Constitution then?
   
   As I went looking for a complete list of ways Bush/Cheney violated the Constitution, I found quite a few examples.
   I also found this interesting nugget quoting Bush.
   I decided to copy the entire article here rather than link.
   
   Has anyone ever once heard of Obama (a constitutional law scholar, by the way) saying anything remotely similar to this "rant?"
   
   From Capitol Hill Blue
   
   The Rant
   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!”
   
   I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”
   
   And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that “goddamned piece of paper” used to guarantee.
   
   Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document.”
   
   Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn’t matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn’t matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not.  Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine – in the end – if something is legal or right.
   
   Every federal official – including the President – who takes an oath of office swears to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."
   
   Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a “living document.”
   
   “"Oh, how I hate the phrase we have—a 'living document,’” Scalia says. “We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake.”
   
   As a judge, Scalia says, “I don't have to prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything else.”
   
   President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a “union between a man and woman.”  Members of Congress have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion.
   
   Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of rights.
   
   “We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones,” Scalia warns. “Don't think that it's a one-way street.”
   
   And don’t buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.
   
   But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just “a goddamned piece of paper.”
   
   © Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue

   replyreport
   1. 71

      rhamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Its' rather simple as Bush fed us eight years of fear doctrine and ramped it up everytime there was a challenge to his methods.  Obama is feeding us a more palpable mess of buying our way out of it.  Obamas message is not as fearful and branded hope.
      
      It is much easier to squash hope than it is fear.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         rkummerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Precisely!!!!
         
         Republicans have lost touch with their traditionalist views.  While they may say they are for limited government, clearly the opposite has been occurring with government's continued growth since FDR.  While some conservatives may say that's due to being stonewalled by liberals, I disagree.  There is a such thing as "big-government republicans".  Why are they going to legislate themselves out of a job? 
         
         Democrats are simply doing exactly what they say they would: spend more, tax more.  Their ideologies haven't changed, even in light of a rising debt level that has no short-term resolution in sight.  Much of their issues lie with their support of status quo on failing social programs (Welfare, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid).  Their claims are that they are underfunded are a distorted truth.  FDR knew when he put many of these programs into place that they would eventually collapse unto themselves.  With our baby boomer population retiring and not enough people paying into the system, it's easy for Democrats to cry "underfunded".  This is nothing more than a legal modern-day pyramid scheme.
         
         As a self-proclaimed Libertarian and thoughtful-peaceful Anarchist, it is my belief that the systems in place have been sold to us with both FEAR and HOPE.  Bush used 9/11 and alleged rampant Islamic terrorist extremism to push through unconstitutional legislation (PATRIOT ACT, for example) to spy on American citizens.  This was rationalized as being done "for our protection and the protection of our nation".  Obama has given taxpayer money to prop up failing businesses who made bad business decision and lacked innovation, selling products people didn't like/want.  He also helped banks, Wall Street, etc. with additional taxypayer support for unlawful greedy/fraudulent practices.  Not a single man nor women in any leadership position in any of these businesses nor industries, nor the regulatory bodies who were supposed to be overseeing them (ironically, the same regulatory agencies Democrats vehemenently validate as necessary to avoid such pitfalls) were arrested, charged, nor convicted of any crime.  This has sent a dangerous and costly message to Corporate America that no matter what happens, don't worry....the taxpayer will always be on the hook as a failsafe.
         
         What America needs is an end to the 'two-party system' and a re-envisioning, taking ideas from various ideologies, to create a better future for our country and even the world.  These two parties will tell you they care, tell you they support you, but clearly, their legislation involves asking you for more of your hard-earned money, setting laws that encourage or prohibit social behaviors, and digging further into your private life without your permission or consent. 
         
         Indeed, whether your a Republican or a Democrat (or neither), you must agree that both sides have a hand in where we are today dating back over several presidencies and congresses.  The two parties want you to sit and argue about who's to blame and never fall onto a solid answer.  Because the answer is BOTH of them are to blame!  Start opening your eyes, start educating ourselves and stop trying to create a divide between one another based on petty political ideologies.  The only divide there should be is between The People and it's Government, making sure it does what The People want.  Remember, that is Government's main and sole purpose.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            rkummerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Also, my presumption is that you are a Democrat and voted Obama.  I only base this off your still-popular view on Bush.
            
            Well, in case you didn't know or watch too much MSNBC, Obama has practically followed many of Bush's doctrines and rhetorics.  As an outsider to the two-party system, it makes me laugh and cry when I hear people despise Bush and yet praise Obama simultaneously.  They are nearly identical when it comes to issues like Guantanamo Bay, CIA torture techniques, the continued war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, stimulus packages...even the PATRIOT ACT (which Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress a year ago COULD have tried to eliminate, but DIDN'T).

            replyreport
            1. 71

               rhamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               While I don't think it matters what party I am from, I happen to vote as an independent.  I stated what I said as a stepping stone to many of the thoughts you expressed.  I happen to believe that good ideas can come from either party but the antagonism and mean spiritedness from either side is vehement to say the least.  Whether Pelosi, Boehner, Rove or Reid the attacks against the personalities is a side bar to the issues but soon outlast the issues themselves.  When you have political leaders dedicating themselves to the task of defeating everything the president tries and does and put all their efforts for his ouster, there is something wrong.  Politics is supposed to be about compromise not dominance.
               
               I think you are right in that FDR put Social Security in place knowing that it could not be a permanent fix but he did try to instill some confidence coming out of the Great Depression. 
               
               Congress lacks the will or morals to deal with the three greatest issues confronting this country now.  That is the shrinking and devalued dollar based on oil and the lack of a competent energy policy very effectively avoided for the past 40 plus years by both congress and the executive branch.  An ever balloning baby boomer retirement overload on the Social Security debacle. And the lack of any sane grip on healthcare expenses and medicare.
               
               I think another good go round at the gay issues and abortion will enrage all of us sheep effectively enough and keep us away from the issues I just mentioned.
               
               My father always said "We have the best government money can buy".

               replyreport
         2. 81

            lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            There is a divide: business vs labor: rich vs poor: the divide is exactly like 1928 someone said this morning.
            
            I know one thing.This Repub party at the present moment is more dangerous than a powder-keg. Should they get their hands on the match, our country is burned to the ground in flames.

            replyreport
   2. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      First of all, I want to say thanks for posting this topic, as it's very interesting to read.  Although something tells me this article might've been taken out of context, so I wouldn't mind if I could've heard the entire conversation, as it took place to gain a more firmer grasp on the situation.  As far everyone saying Cagsil was right about the country being divided, I thought that was wide public knowledge for years, as most historians will tell you this country has always been divided since the post George Washington days, on many issues throughout our history.  The only difference, for today's era, is that the lines in which we're divided as a nation has become drastically more defined politically.  However, judging from some of the comments on here, I can tell maybe I was wrong in that assumption that this knowledge was purely common sense.
      
      However, I know many people want to diss Bush for his Patriot Act, and I for one will go on record to say that I think he's arguably one of our worst Presidents we've ever had in US history.  However, when it comes to the Patriot Act, I can see where he's coming from on this.  Take in mind, unlike the previous wars we've had, the nation wasn't fighting against a singular identifiable enemy.  No, after 9/11, we were fighting a terrorist group that doesn't exactly believe in following the rules.  As we're talking about enemies that aren't afraid to die in the name of their freaking god, and they're not afraid to murder thousands of innocent people to get their way.  How do you fight an enemy like that?  Seriously, how do you fight an enemy that isn't afraid to die, and will attack you by any means necessary?     
      
      Do you try to fight them fairly?  No, you can't fight fair against an enemy like that, so drastic measures had to be made.  Granted, it stinks that some of our freedoms had to be stripped away, but I'd much rather have a safer nation with more limited rights than a country with more rights and less protection.  However, that's just me.  Sure, the Patriot Act may not seem fair, but it's a necessary evil unfortunately....
      
      edit:  As far as Bush's statements go about the constitution...well he never did strike me as a educated guy, as he always struck me more as a action type of guy.  Therefore, I can't say that I'm surprised by his statement.

      replyreport
   3. 61

      Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Your argument is that Obama should be able to ignore the Constitution because Bush did?
      
      Good job.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         No, her argument(from my pov)is-- Where was the outrage for Bush's shredding of the Constitution? And where was the demand that the president follow the Constitution, that the Constitution was unfallable, etc etc.
         
         Bush's lawyer's wrote new "interpretations",so as to allow torture. And not a peep from the right. But NOW you all scream that every move of Obama's is "unconstitutional".
         
         Just like all of a sudden, protests became patriotic. Before, they were called "acting against the president in a time of war".

         replyreport
         1. 75

            Tim_511posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            lovemychris, apparently you had no contact with conservatives during this time.  Many of us were screaming about this at the time, but you probably didn't hear that on Air America.
            We complained about portions of the Patriot Act, we complained about No Child Left Behind, we complained bitterly about McCain-Feingold being signed, among many others.  Most of us actually believe that the Constitution should be followed, even during a Republican presidency, not just when it is convenient like leftists.  I notice that you don't attempt to claim that Obama is complying with the Constitutional bounds limiting the federal government.
            
            Almost all of Obama's moves are unconstitutional - its that simple.  We will keep complaining about that, until he starts to follow it.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               "but you probably didn't hear that on Air America."
               
               I was not privvy to Air America. The rabid righty's have their own version of free-speech up where I live.....Their speech and nothing else. At least on the radio. At least during all of Bushco, and especially at those Bagger rallies.
               Guess I missed the signs decrying Bush and Cheney.
               
               And seeing as how the whole purpopse of the Right is to take apart and change the constitution--I'll take Obama's continuation of Bushco's "interpreting" it.

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  Tim_511posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I want to hear this - give me some ways and examples relating to domestic policy indicating  that the right wants to take apart and change the Constitution.  If you can come up with some items, I'd also like you to show me why they are unconstitutional.
                  
                  Also, its quite an interesting admission that you don't care if Obama's actions are unconstitutional, but you persist in yelling about perceived unconstitutional actions by Bush.  Double standard much there?   I admitted above that Bush did some unconstitutional things, but you won't admit any wrongdoing  - and in fact, defend unconstitutional actions - by Obama and the left.  Nice bit of hypocrisy there.  I complained when Bush did wrong and when Obama does wrong.  I'd like to hear you be honest and do the same on your part.

                  replyreport
   4. 62

      bgamallposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      People don't understand that Bush was an out and out dictator. And he was a war criminal. And I believe he knew about 911 beforehand.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         jaymelee23posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I completely agree with you, bgamall.

         replyreport
         1. 75

            Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I remember Bush being asked if he was a dictator. Bush said, no, but it would make things a lot easier.
            
            He is not cunning enough like Hitler to be a whole out dictator, one good thing for the American people.

            replyreport
      2. 75

         Tim_511posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         A dictator?  Then why didn't he run roughshod over the Democrats?  He could have easily done it if he were a dictator, but he couldn't have fought his way out of a paper bag when it came to partisan politics.  He let you all lie through your teeth about him for 8 years and didn't lock up a single person for their falsehoods.  Show me a real dictator who would stand for that.
         
         You want an American dictator?  Try FDR who threatened to pack the court if he didn't get his way, or maybe even Obama, whose primary words to the Republicans when they wanted input were "I won".   Well, we won the last election.

         replyreport
   5. 52

      TheMadChatterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I am sorry that people are just now catching on the fact that politicians are brining this country to its knees, Many years ( not 8, 12 nor even 20, much longer than that) have passed where the politicians have gone unchecked.  With each president the political poo increases.
      This process will remain the same until the people of this country realize that the government has its dirty little fingers to deep in the pie.
      Once the government is reminded what their business is we can continue to grow and be a strong nation with morals again, but not while we sit back with no worries, because the government will take care of everything.
      Talk and blame will not change these issues, get involved before it is too late.

      replyreport
   6. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      So, Bush lost his cool a few times and spouted off.
      So what?
      Much better to spout off but then to uphold good things, than to pretend to uphold good things and then act totally to the contrary like Obama does.
      
      Besides, you don't know the whole context.  He might've even been being sarcastic about some of that. 
      Hmm...kinda like you supposedly were when you spouted your anti-white-straight-male rant a while back.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I kinda liked it when he sent his dog lookin for the WMD'd at that press party. HAHAHAHA---everyone got a good laugh at that one, huh?
         
         Yeah boy, how highlarious. "Are they here?" "No", chuckle chuckle chuckle..."Are they there?" Hee hee hee.
         
         What a funny guy. Not. Guess you had to be one of the elite to get it.
         One who didn't lose a kid, parent, or spouse.

         replyreport
2. 81

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   Yeah, odd isn't it? And not only that, they were PROUD of Bush for his cocky attitude. They make fun of Obama because he is calm and slow to anger. They liked Bush the Pit-bull.
   But yes MM, that is why the Tea-Party was so offensive. Because it was like, "Where have you been the past 8 years????"
   
   It's disgusting how soon they forget, and NOW act like the Constitution is everything. Even as they STILL seek to undo it!
   
   “We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones,” Scalia warns. “Don't think that it's a one-way street.”
   
   Enter, the Tea-Party.
   And Scalia is in that clique just as much as the rest of them. Thomas as well.
   Bgamall(hope I got that right) said just the other day, that we are close to having an entrenched oligarchy which will run this country....
   It's the Tea-baggers and their corporate pals.
   
   And not only do they forget, they want it that way. Cagsil said the other day that this country is divided, and I poo-pooed him. But he is so right!
   I just heard that 55% of Republicans like Scott Walker, and he may be a presidential candidate! UN believable! If that's the case, there is no way to even bridge that gap.
   
   To me, he is like the Gestapo, and so are the Republibaggers. Only the "Jews" in their scenario are muslims, women and poor people.
   
   We will be the next Palestine.

   replyreport
3. 81

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   First to go...abortion rights and union rights.
   And the effort to shut down NPR is an effort to shut people up.

   replyreport
4. 60

   pisean282311posted 13 years ago

   Well he was King Bush - II ...He was above constitution ..wasn't he...The Man who ruled over superpower USA and took it into recession , made it second most powerful country in the world from being most powerful!!!!!!!!!!!!!

   replyreport
5. 60

   Evan G Rogersposted 13 years ago

   The constitutions been dead since before the times of Lincoln.
   
   Want to know WHY it died? It's because people read things like "the 10th amendment", and instead of understanding it, they ask the Supreme Court to TELL them what it means.
   
   Wake up - more than half of what your country does is illegal.
   
   In a recent example: the Obama Administration is considering a no-fly zone over libya. That's an act of war, and it seems that Congress isn't even debating the subject.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      it is not obama administration which did that...It is United Nations Security Council which voted for no fly zone over libya...Act of war initiated by United Nations against libya...

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         So, explain to me again how a government to which I have no say can tell me to die for them?
         
         what were the founders saying? no taxation without representation?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Aren't you overstating things a little, okay, a lot?  Who is asking you, Evan G. Rogers, to die for them? 
            
            And, yes, you do have a say. It so happens that most people believe it is to our benefit to have a seat at the table of international organizations.  But if you don't agree, then say so with your vote.  That is how you have a say.

            replyreport
6. 61

   lady_love158posted 13 years ago

   "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 reject the premise that conservatives did not challenge Bush on the patriot act! We did! We have always stood up for the constitution! What's really ironic here is the author goes out of his way to mention Obama is a constitutional law professor, yet Obama voted with Bush for the Patriot act as senator and continues to support it today! In addition Obama supported the health care mandate declared unconstitutional. And Obama wants to eliminate free speech, gun rights, and selective defend constitutional law of the land while selectively prosecuting those that violate the law of the land. If Bush was bad for the constitution, Obama is America's enemy a perjurer and worthy of impeachment for what he's done to the constitution!

   replyreport
   1. 60

      pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      you would surely win prize of being number uno critic of Obama

      replyreport
      1. 61

         DTR0005posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Lady Love's on someone's "payroll." She just won't admit it.

         replyreport
   2. 81

      lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Where was the tea-party then?
      Why did they wait until Obama got elected to gin up the anger? I know that the ORIGINAL tea-party, ala Ron Paul, was a consitent voice against Bushco's unconstitutional moves,But that tea-bagger falderal did not start until we had a Democratic president win the election.
      
      Therefore, your anger is suspect, as are your motives. They are FAR from being pure.
      
      AND, in fact......when and if another country were to invade and take over America, you could not utter a peep...since you support it while it is being done to others.
      
      America's chickens are indeed coming home to roost. And in fact it IS America vs America. Cagsil was right. We are divided.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Ill tell you what... many tea party people voted for Obama thinking they were going to get something different than what they got! Remember if it wasn't for indepenents voting for Obama he wouldn't be president today.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            That doesn't answer my question. They were out to get him before he took office.

            replyreport
         2. 61

            DTR0005posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Did the Tea Partiers use a crayon of a bullet hole when they marked their ballots?

            replyreport
      2. 71

         Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         "But that tea-bagger falderal did not start until we had a Democratic president win the election."
         
         That's not entirely true. The tea party had its beginnings in the last year or so of the Bush administration. The folks who were partying then are the real patriots.
         
         The problem is that after President Obama was elected, a bunch of fearful, ignorant, xenophobic, partisan scoundrels jumped on the bandwagon and turned it into a mockery of what it originally stood for.

         replyreport
   3. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yep, your certainly right.  Although we can criticize Bush all we want about the patriot act, but the reality is that O'Bama has not only endorsed it over the years, he's also tried to implement further steps to it as well.  Therefore, I don't think it's fair to label that squarely on Bush.

      replyreport
   4. 86

      I am DB Cooperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "Obama voted with Bush for the Patriot act as senator and continues to support it today!"
      
      Obama wasn't a member of the Senate in 2001 when the Patriot Act was passed into law. He filibustered against the reauthorization of the bill 5 years later. He eventually voted for a compromised bill.
      
      I'm certainly against the way Obama is currently supporting the Patriot Act, but I don't think it's fair to say he "voted with Bush" on it.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         This is what I find so unusual about Obama supporters... they are all simply in denial! You refuse to accept his flaws even as you admit to them... right here in your own post you state he voted for the compromise bill... in other words he voted with Bush!!!

         replyreport
         1. 76

            junkoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            He also compromised on the tax cuts for the rich, financial, and healthcare reform. He had to take what he could get from conservatives in the republican party and blue dog and yellow dogs in the democratic party. Obama has never been the commander and chief, he's never been respected as president. Guantanamo was a example used by the right to let Obama know he would get no support for anything he wanted to do as president.

            replyreport
7. 60

   MyJourneyposted 13 years ago

   Just one question.  Why is it an either or?  Why is it that as an American I am either supposed to support the Democrats or the Republicans?  why do our arguments have to be one sided?  Bush had positives and negatives.  Obama has positives and negatives.  Neither one is a saint and neither one is the devil.  I voted for one and not the other.  History will judge them just as much as we do today, but I hope they will do it factually rather than through name-calling and media spin.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Obama has positives??? Quick someone call Fox News!!! Lol

      replyreport
      1. 81

         lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Yeah, so they can twist it around into a sinister plot.

         replyreport
      2. 76

         junkoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Lady Love has positives??? Quick call hubpage monitors Lol

         replyreport
      3. 60

         MyJourneyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Oh I'm not a big fan of his, but I'm big enough to admit that he does have some positives.  Unfortunately, I don't find that the anti-Bush contingent can claim the same

         replyreport
      4. 61

         DTR0005posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Don't know Fox's phone number. Why don't you check your pay check stub loll

         replyreport
8. 74

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   No, Jim.
   That is not even remotely close to my argument.
   My QUESTION is why is there suddenly this massive preoccupation with the Constitution? Where were all these people when our constitution/country were getting reamed up the butt by Bush/Cheney?
   Did people like you not care about preserving the Constitution ten? If you did, why weren't you out there screaming "foul!" at Bush/Cheney.
   And we are NOT just talking about the Patriot Act here.
   Bush and Cheney acted against the Constitution in a number of ways. Do I need to spell them all out?
   Of course, that wouldn't do any good, would it?
   The Patriot Act is the one you guys seize on -- because you can point the finger at Obama (well he extended it so he's bad).
   
   This thread is an opportunity for you constitutionalists among us to explain why you looked the other way during the Bush years but suddenly are up in arms now....
   Either the Constitution really is inviolate -- no matter which party is trying to violate it -- or it's just today's anti-Obama rallying cry.
   Or, in the words of a couple of our more vocal forum posters,
   you people are LYING about your allegiance to Constitutional sovreignty/purity.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah you'll need to spell them out at least some of them.

      replyreport
   2. 71

      Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "Did people like you not care about preserving the Constitution ten? If you did, why weren't you out there screaming "foul!" at Bush/Cheney.
      And we are NOT just talking about the Patriot Act here."
      
      The thing is that a very very few of today's conservatives were protesting against the Bush/Cheney abuses. It's just that they weren't doing it terribly loudly at first, and didn't really start until it was too late to do much about that administrations misdeeds (the last few months of W's second term).
      
      But after Obama got elected, the strict-constructionist rhetoric really ramped up, because hey, now there's a liberal in office, we'd better do everything we can to make sure he can't do anything he promised to do on the campaign (and presumably was elected to do), so we're going to get all strict-constructionist on his @$$. Never mind that we didn't make a peep when W tapped our phones, etc.
      
      The Tea Party aren't the only people to be hypocritical in their strict constructionism. Thomas Jefferson was a strict constructionist before he became president, and then he went and made the Louisiana purchase (which the President, under a strict-constructionist interpretation, does not have the power to do).
      
      But the Tea Party would probably call me a "revisionist" for bringing that up.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Tim_511posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Jeff, thats not quite right as I told lovemychris above.  We complained about a lot during the Bush presidency such as aspects of the Patriot Act, McCain-Feingold, and NCLB.
         
         I grant you, though, that some conservatives thought that Bush would be more amenable to real conservatism than he was, and weren't on top of things as they should have been.  The other aspect is, that when a man is as reviled as he was for simply claiming to be a conservative, you tend to defend your own, even when he might be in the wrong.  Its human nature - leftists are doing the exact same thing with Obama.

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Oh, sure, some conservatives did complain, it's just that they weren't very many, or very loud, until the last few months of W's term. And then after a liberal was elected president, woo-hoo did the right get noisy.

            replyreport
9. 74

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   I will spell them out, including the demands that Bush and Cheney be held accountable, just as soon as you tell me exactly when you had your epiphany about the Constitution?
   Was it before or after 2008?
   Nevermind. We know the answer already.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You would know the answer if you bothered to read the replies in your own thread,  unfortunately you just picked out some old hit piece thinking you had a gotcha ... too bad you fell short honey! Lol

      replyreport
      1. 76

         junkoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         M/M  Your thread proves that there is nothing you can say or do that will cause a logical, reasonable, or sensible response from jim or La Lo.

         replyreport
10. 81

    lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

    http://kucinich.house.gov/News/Document … ntID=93581
    
    Articles of Impeachment for Bushco.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Lol! What a bunch of rubbish! You see before you can impeach someone you actually have facts and evidence (see Bill Clinton)... just because you accuse someone doesn't make it so,  besides if you prosecut Bush for that stuff you'd have to prosecute Obama too he's doing all the same things!  Lol

       replyreport
       1. 81

          lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I'll take that.
          I want something to be done.
          You seem to want to forget about the originators of it all.
          
          Why is that?

          replyreport
          1. 61

             lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

             You tell me? The dems had a super majotity they could gave brought Bush and Cheney up on charges but didn't!!! Why??? Could it be the rhetoric just couldn't be supported by facts? Hmmmm...

             replyreport
             1. 81

                lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                No--I think it's because they didn't want to put the country through it...the billions of dollars it would take, the real horror to be discovered...
                It's in some way too much to handle.
                Plus, we were in trouble deep. All those resources and time spent on it...
                
                But by not doing so, they make a mockery of America.
                How do we go around telling the world how to behave and we let our own criminals off the hook?
                Plus, the rest of the world KNOWS.
                
                Some people here seem to be the only ones who don't. Or won't. Or just can't.
                
                I don't know, but it's the HEIGHT of hypocricy for you to harp on Obama.
                I'm sure a lot of people are quite happy that Bushco got off.
                Constitution be damned.

                replyreport
                1. 61

                   DTR0005posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   LMC - perfect answer, and I suspect your got it right. Why put America through the same BS we endured during the 90's with Clinton.

                   replyreport
             2. 76

                junkoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                La Lo:   Democrat's Super Majority was less than a majority when there are blue and yellow dog democrats in the democratic party. The republican party voted as a super majority in lock step, now the republicans party has red dogs(tea party) and their steps are unlocked. The republicans has a super majority in the house which is devided as was the dem's super majority

                replyreport
       2. 71

          Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          "besides if you prosecut Bush for that stuff you'd have to prosecute Obama too he's doing all the same things!"
          Bring it. If someone's guilty, someone should do time.

          replyreport
11. 74

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    Gotcha on who? Oh, right. That's Sarah Palin's stock answer when anyone other than Fox News asks her a question.
    
    I REREAD every answer in this thread.
    You, LaLo, are the only one who addressed the the question:
    
    
    Ok. I believe you. You challenged Bush on the Patriot Act.
    I'm sure you can point me to public forum threads that will corroborate this claim. I mean, given how outspoken you are now, I have to believe you were equally passionate in your constitutional defense back then...

    replyreport
12. 74

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    Thank you, LMC.
    Compared to most of these, the Patriot Act is a minor infraction.

    replyreport
    1. 81

       lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Youre welcome MM. Only he and Jim McDermot had the guts to stand up there and demand something be done....

       replyreport
13. 74

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    junko *sigh*
    That's a given.
    The complete dismissal by jim says it all.
    Notice none of the other usual suspects have bothered to post at all.
    It was not intended as a rhetorical question....
    
    The truth is, 99% of the yahoos out there crying about the Constitution last read it in elementary school. They are selective about the provisions they care about (Second Amendment trumps them all). They are selective about noticing when it's being trampled on (after the fact they will "concede" the Patriot Act qualifies, but since Obama has extended it, they can point to him and nullify the fact that Bush enacted it).
    Why are they suddenly all concerned about the Constitution? Fox News and the TP mouthpieces. They have been told to be afraid that Obama is working to demolish it (he is not).
    All of a sudden everyone's "pro-constitution." (An actual phrase in the Sarah Palin book I'm torturing myself by reading).
    
    I knew I wasn't the only one who saw through the facade. At the very least, this thread confirms my suspicions...

    replyreport
    1. 71

       Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       You're not the only one. I've been asking people (not here, though) where their newfound love for (certain parts of) the Constitution came from ever since Inauguration Day.
       
       I reckon many of these neophyte Constitutional "scholars" have one or more of the following in common:
       
       * They have never read the Constitution in its entirety
       * They get their ideas about what is and isn't constitutional not from the document itself and the two-and-a-quarter centuries of Supreme Court rulings but from the rhetoric of Glush Limbeck
       * They harbor secret fears that the first Black president will somehow dismantle the good ol' boy network that has ensured them relative prosperity for relatively little work, and turn life in the Capitol into something out of Birth of a Nation.
       * They will never admit to any of the above, especially not the last one.

       replyreport
       1. 76

          junkoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Jeff: You just said that because you know its true.

          replyreport
    2. 59

       logic,commonsenseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       What about the bings and the googles?
       
       Calling people yahoos just reinforces the idea that elitists think they know better than anyone else what's best for everyone.

       replyreport
14. 74

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    I suppose it goes without saying that you don't believe in the UN, Evan?
    How about NAFTA?
    NATO?
    OPEC?
    Every other acronymn representing any other organization of countries?

    replyreport
15. 74

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    Jeff,
    You have made a very eloquent (and true) point.
    The absence of participation on this thread by the usual right-wing spokespersons (except LaLo) speaks volumes, doesn't it?
    They got nothin'.
    It's not a gotcha.
    It's plain as day.
    If "Glush Limbeck" told the sheep to stand up for the SEARS Roebuck catalog, the NYC phone book or Beowulf, they'd do it. And swear up and down they'd read it cover to cover

    replyreport
    1. 76

       junkoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       It's a strike! No It' a boycott!! no I don't Know  what to call it, but it's a disciplined action. I bet they are emailing the game plan now. Maybe I don't know, maybe the right has decided to ignor this thread

       replyreport
       1. 76

          junkoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Now the caption THE CONSTITUTION WAS JUST A GODDAMNED PIECE OF PAPER. I know if Lady Love is...

          replyreport
16. 70

    Cagsilposted 13 years ago

    To most politicians, the U.S. Constitution is just a piece of paper for them to interpret and rip apart, so they can do what they choose to do.
    
    Loopholes can be found in almost everything, just look at the Justice System/Laws created.

    replyreport
    1. 76

       junkoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       And you're right.

       replyreport
       1. 70

          Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I'm glad you agree.

          replyreport
          1. 76

             junkoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             I'm glad you're glad and we can agree, that's progress.

             replyreport
             1. 70

                Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Yes Junko, common ground obtained is always progress.

                replyreport
17. 74

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    RFLMAO!
    That's rich (no elitism intended)
    And what about Jeeves? I suppose we should ask him, too!

    replyreport
18. 60

    JON EWALLposted 13 years ago

    hubbers
    Today is a dark day in the history of the United States Government. The
    United States attacked a sovereign nation, without a declaration of war,
    maybe killing other people who are not our enemies. The President
    announced that he met with leaders of both parties and they agreed to the
    Presidents actions. The Constitution of our nation  was violated again by the
    Obama Administration, without a doubt. The President’s statements prior to
    the start of the bombing make it appear that he somehow believes that he
    along can dictate in matters of  public policy.

    replyreport
    1. 81

       lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Been there!! Done that!!.....AND?

       replyreport
19. 81

    lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

    Republicans Push To Change The 14th Amendment « SensicoAug 8, 2010 ... Let's look at the part of the 14th amendment republicans want to change, “all persons born or naturalized in the United States”. ...
    sensico.wordpress.com/.../republicans-push-to-change-the-14th-amendment/
    
    repealthe17thamendment.blogspot.com/ - Cached - SimilarGet more results from the past 24 hours
    Repeal the 17th Amendment? - By John Yoo - The Corner - National ...Oct 22, 2010 ... John Yoo writes on NRO: One popular idea making the rounds among some conservatives and Tea Partiers is a call for the repeal of the 17th ...
    www.nationalreview.com/corner/.../repea … t-john-yoo - Cached►Repeal 17th Amendment - TheHill.comJul 1, 2010 ... The 17th Amendment needs to be repealed. Senators could focus more on their states' concerns rather than on a national scale. ...
    
    Governor in Michigan is trying to bankrupt the state, so he can declare an emergency, and has given himself the power to fire all public officials, and replace them with those of his choosing.
    
    Kasich in Ohio seeks to privitize everything. Private profit on PUBLIC property!
    
    Kasich would privatize state development efforts | The Columbus ...Aug 17, 2010 ... Kasich would privatize state development efforts. Nonprofit would be nimble, he says, but Strickland assails idea ...
    www.dispatch.com/live/.../17-private-de … forts.html - Cached
    
    Walker in Wisconsin is selling public energy to Koch Bro's at dirt price. Selling off the state.
    
    making it nearly impossible for women to have an abortion, even though it is a legal medical procedure.
    giving corporations the rights of private citizens.
    seeking to put God on public property.....whose God?
    
    And as far as Obama goes....what do you want him to do? Give UP the things Bush put in place for him?
    And then what?
    Wait for the next Republican to come along and do it again?
    It should never have been done in the 1st place....you cannot untie a KNOT so easily!
    You should have joined us before it went into effect: we were saying, once it's there, it's there forever.
    
    And the blase attitude dipslayed about Bush's wrong-doings, and the demonizing of we who did not like him.....Nah, I'd say I don't owe you anything as an explanation for anything.
    I tried to do my part when it was all going down.
    Now that it's done...don't come crying to me!!

    replyreport