Posted on 10/17/2005 10:16:39 AM PDT by WestTexasWend
>>>Ooo!AND a BRILLIANT quoting of Article 6 to boot.<<<
I know our education system has been dumbed down considerably since I attended school; but even now I not would consider a copy-paste of a clause of the Constitution to be an act of brilliance.
>>>You STILL have not made your argument. Exactly where is the President not holding up the Constitution?<<<
Seriously, sonny, you really do need a crash course in the Constitution. Afterward, you will be more likely to present a much easier question, such as, "When has the President upheld the Constitution?"
>>>Exactly how is it that you can exclude the entire Congress from your analysis...<<<
I haven't. Until now the debate has been about the President.
>>>. . . do you "Just Blame Bush" as a knee jerk response?<<
No, I blame him when he usurps the Constitution. In case you are wondering, I voted for him twice, and I have five years of posts on Free Republic you are welcome to read.
>>>Presidents that came before him and followed the same policies<<<
And they, as well, were guilty of usurpation of power, which is tyranny.
>>>Be all that as it may, it is still not any sort of walking talking proof of his failure to up hold the Constitution.<<<
Oh, yes it is. President Bush rarely considers the Constitution in his decisions, if at all.
>>>while you are furiously digging up arguments<<<
Furiously digging up what arguments?
>>>why don't we ASSUME that we are speaking about both your original post and the story that it was related to instead of tilting at windmills<<<
No, I will ASSUME that we are speaking about your original post, and my original post.
1) He signed CFR, a blatant violation of Article 1, Section 8, and the First Amendment (or, as Rush labels it, "The Congressional Incumbent Security Act").
2) He signed the Medicare Prescription Drug bill, a bill he pushed through Congress, which is a violation of Article 1, Section 8, and the 10th Amendment.
3) He signed into law an expansion of the Department of Education, a bill he pushed through Congress. The Department of Education is an unconstitutional government entity, in a violation of Article 1, Section 8, and the 10th Amendment.
4) He has failed to enforce our immigration laws, laws he is charged to enforce as the chief executive.
I probably forgot some, but that will be enough for starters. Include the fact that every budget, transportation bill, and agriculture bill is loaded with unconstitutional expenditures for socialism and enforcement of other unconstitutional federal powers (such as enforcement of federal firearm laws), and you have major league violations of the Constitution.
One could also make a good argument that his lack of enforcement of treasonous activities and speech against the United States during wartime is a violation of the Constitution. But for now we will stick with those actions which are clearly unconstitutional.
If fact, I deliberately forced you into a corner that you could not answer from.
Funny. I would recommend you read the Federalist Papers, and the Commentaries on the Constitution, by Justice Joseph Story, 1833. These two sources have been used extensively to support valid (constitutional) arguments before the Supreme Court.
The following are some of my favorite quotes:
"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." -- George Washington, from his Farewell Address
"On every question of construction [of the constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1823
"It would be absurd to say, first, that Congress may do what they please, and then that they may do this or that particular thing. After giving Congress power to raise money and apply it to all purposes which they may pronounce necessary to the general welfare, it would be absurd, to say the least, to superadd a power to raise armies, to provide fleets, etc. . . . If Congress can apply money indefinitely on the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands, they may establish teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads. In short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress." -- James Madison, floor of the House of Representatives, 1792
It does not meat STD, but it hitting one can lead to catching a STD.
>>>Points 1,2 and 3 are null. Why? CONGRESS passed it. That makes it legal.<<<
Seriously, Danae, you really don't understand the Constitution, and its underlying principles and intent.
>>>If there is anything Unconstitutional in there, then it is the job of the SC to filter it out and decide what IS and ISN'T Constitutional.<<<
Therein lies the problem, and the motivation of the Conservative Movement. Congress passes unconstitutional legislation, the President ignores his oath of office and signs that legislation into "law", and a corrupt Supreme Court ignores their oaths of office and, generally, okays it. On other occasions the congress, or state legislatures, pass constitutional laws that are overturned by our corrupt Supreme Court, or by corrupt state supreme courts.
>>>That's how it works, Checks and Balances.<<<
But it doesn't work. The biggest blow to the constitution, in my opinion, orrurred when the so-called "Progressives" (e.g., socialists) tricked the people into ratifying the 17th Amendment to the constitution. That consolidated all power in Washington.
>>>Look, it isn't up to the President what laws get passed by congress. If he signs the legislation, it still does not put the onus of constitutionality on him. That is the purview of the Supreme Court. <<<
Then his "Swearing-In" -- his taking the oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States -- is a mere formality? What you wrote is pure nonsense.
>>If you want to get picky, TAXES are unconstitutional. <<<
That is also nonsense, Danae. The 16th Amendment authorized income taxes. Prior to the 16th Amendment there were other forms of taxes. But taxes have been constitutional since the beginning.
>>>Your quotes are pretty, but they do not change the reality of today<<<
They were not intended to be pretty, Danae, only enlightening. The "reality of today" is we have an out-of-control federal government exercising powers that are not only unauthorized, but in some cases forbidden.
>>>...and the Founders were smart enough to know that they could not anticipate the needs of the future.<<<
Yes, and they gave us the Amendment process to correct any wrongs or inconsistencies in the Constitution. George Washington mentioned that fact in one of those pretty little quotes I provided in my last reply.
>>>It is the place we start from, not the place we end up. Hopefully the principles and reasoning they present will guide us into the future. The Papers are a guide, not a road map. The journey is entirely ours.<<<
Without a government bound by the chains of the constitution, it will be a journey to destruction. You can count on that. And you really should read some of those pretty little quotes and historical papers, Danae, so you will not continue to make a fool of yourself.
>>>Despite the fact you accuse me of ignorance, I have read the Constitution more often than I can count, the federalist Papers and many other documents from the period.<<<
I seriously doubt that, Danae. If you did, you certainly didn't retain anything. Your understanding of the Constitution, and its underlying principles and intent, hovers somewhere around zero. Your argument that favors interpretation of the Constitution as a living document is the same argument the Left has been using to strip us of our heritage, our mores, our right to self defense, our property rights, and our national boundaries.
FYI: the Constitution IS a living Document as the Founders intended. Sorry you don't like it.
You know, I have tried to be polite. Now I won't.
You are acting like an ignorant little boy (5 years old or so) who had his ball taken from him off the playground! You are insulting when someone tries POLITELY to tell you to go extricate your head from where ever you shoved it, and bug off. I an not impressed by your pissant little complaints on how much I have or have not studied the Constitution of The United States. I have, I have the grades in College to prove it. I have no need to prove anything to you about my level of education or YOUR lack of it. It is a waste of my time, I have better things to do. Your arguments are circular and sophmoric.
I disagree with you. I very very seriously doubt that you have an open mind about anything. Certainly you can't take anyone telling you you are wrong. Your arrogant assertion that you know more than just about anyone else and your ignorant and, I might add, completely incorrect interpretations of what is Legal and what isn't, what is and isn't constitutional is pedantic at best, at worse, symptomatic of knee-jerk far right Kool-aid drinkers. It is singularly unsuccessful as a technique for making your point, and in my case a complete waste of time. You come across as a sanctimonious ass and I am done with you.
Any further questions? No? Good. Good bye.
>>>FYI: the Constitution IS a living Document as the Founders intended. Sorry you don't like it. <<<
The Founding Fathers intended no such thing. What college did you attend? They really brainwashed you! They certainly did not teach you the Constitution!
Do you have any idea what a "living constitution" really means? It means the government can do anything it pleases in all cases whatsoever, provided they claim it is for "the public safety", "the common good", "the general welfare", etc.. It means the Constitution is a meaningless historical document. It provides an open door to any charismatic tyrant to form a dictatorship or a monarchy.
For the record, Conservatives believe in strict constructionism, the opposite of the Liberal belief in a "living document". You are a liberal, my friend. Your incoherent ranting is just another sign.
Did your buddies at DU put you up to posting on Free Republic? You really didn't think you could get away with this, did you?
Americain Military University in Manassas Virgina.
YOU Believe in strict Constructionsism. Your beliefs are certainly not good enough to contiune talking about let alone trying to blanket cover all Conservatives. Thanks for proving the arrogance claim I made earlier.
Consider getting yourself a real education before popping off on what you think you know Philip. DU! HAHAHA! The last attempt to try and insult your way to making a point!!! LOL ROFL!!! Alas for the weak minded! BAWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! I feel sorry for you!
Bu bye Philip.
>>>Americain Military University in Manassas Virgina.<<<
I knew you were a phony. That so-called "university" you attended is an on-line degree mill, whose "accreditation" agency covers no recognizable colleges or universities. (See: http://www.detc.org/degree.html#btop )
>>>YOU Believe in strict Constructionsism. Your beliefs are certainly not good enough to contiune talking about let alone trying to blanket cover all Conservatives.<<<
DUmmy, all conservatives believe in strict constructionism.
>>>Consider getting yourself a real education before popping off on what you think you know Philip.<<<
I have to admit the education I received during my undergraduate study at the University of Hawaii, Chaminade University, and Clemson University; and my graduate study at the University of Southern California, Penn State, and Clemson, is no match for the quality of the education you received at your on-line degree mill.
>>>The last attempt to try and insult your way to making a point!!! LOL ROFL!!! Alas for the weak minded! BAWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! I feel sorry for you!<<<
LOL. You are really funny, DUmmy.
Wow! Now that is subtle.
I can't remember the original incident--please tell me Kerry didn't say to a man in uniform serving his country something like, "that's Mister to you!"???!!! Holy cow.
I meant to ping you to 73. :)
That's the funny thing. We can fight and argue and abuse each other on other threads, but when the left wing meatheads come into view we all grab for the pitchforks.
I've been as down on the prez as anybody, but they gotta come through me to get at him.
I have to jump in here. First of all, PF, I agree with many of the points Danae made. I hated CFR and was very upset when Bush signed it, but the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional (see, e.g., Madison v. Marbury, 1803). Many here thought Bush signed it for political reasons, with the expectation that it would be overturned.
The only possible extra-Constitutional argument a person could make is the invasion of Iraq, but there are solid arguments that Congress ratified that war, so I just don't agree with you.
If all these pieces of legislation are unconstitutional, why not boot out the entire Congress and the Supreme Court while you're at it (though that may not be such a bad idea after all, LOL!)??
Bush didn't write, sign and uphold all of this on his own.
And I don't think Danae deserves, at all, your criticism of him as a "phony."
I checked out that website. Danae's school serves military people. It seems to me that distance learning is entirely appropriate for a person serving his/her country. They don't have the luxury of staying on U.S. soil and pursuing multiple degrees, as you have apparently done.
And guess what? I'm a lawyer. I would have loved to apply to JAG but I was pregnant in my last year and ended up never practicing.
>>>but the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional (see, e.g., Madison v. Marbury, 1803). Many here thought Bush signed it for political reasons, with the expectation that it would be overturned.<<<
What does John Marshall say in Marbury vs. Madison about judges who rule contrary to the constitution, or ignore it in their research?
>>>If all these pieces of legislation are unconstitutional, why not boot out the entire Congress and the Supreme Court while you're at it (though that may not be such a bad idea after all, LOL!)?? <<<
In the meantime, why not hold the President to his oath of office? If he doesn't sign legislation (if he vetos it), it is much more difficult for the congress (they have to override).
>>>Bush didn't write, sign and uphold all of this on his own.<<<
He signed all of it.
>>>And I don't think Danae deserves, at all, your criticism of him as a "phony." <<<
And I do not think you have followed our conversation carefully. Danae made one statement after another that totally contradicted the Constitution. Worse, he stated the Founding Fathers intended the Constitution to be a "living document"; an outrageous statement one would expect to hear only from pathological liars, like Al Gore, or those brainwashed by leftist teachers, professors or acquaintances.
>>>I checked out that website. Danae's school serves military people. It seems to me that distance learning is entirely appropriate for a person serving his/her country. They don't have the luxury of staying on U.S. soil and pursuing multiple degrees, as you have apparently done.<<<
Then they did a poor job. Danae knows little or nothing about the Constitution of the United States, a document all military personnel take an oath to support and defend.
>>>And guess what? I'm a lawyer. <<<
I am certain you are aware that there are way too many corrupt lawyers who seek to undermine or circumvent the Constitution of the United States for their own gain and/or ideology. Are you one of them? I am not sure since you ignored parts of Marbury vs. Madison that would have condemned many modern-day rulings.
No offense, and good luck raising your children.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.