The Keeper wrote:

Death_and_Taxes wrote:

unaffiliated_person wrote:

Probably this one is a big one:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
Here is another:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/


Ahh, pure ignorance, where you have sited liberal bush hating media sources (discredited CNN) I will cut straight to the constitution and site the actual events and what has taken place in court.

Read section 2 and 3 of article 2 and section 8 of article 1 in the constitution.
then read this article from wikipedia-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

About a week after the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) which authorized the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Now tell me again what has the president done that is illegal. because none of your sources can prove or tell me anything that he has done that is against the law and powers authorized to him.

Also the only way that he can found to be out of order is if congress is able to pass a law saying so (good luck with that they can barely stand up to a stiff breeze) or if their is a court case that is brought successfully against him (as you can see from the article there haven't been any).

All your bush hating is only going to get you mad. I suggest you take a chill pill and realize that you have been played by the media and the entire left side of America.

Last of all I want to tell you what I read this morning. I came across an article that talked about the exoneration of Paul Wolfwitz of any wrong doing at the world bank. you should remember, that the campaign against him was a smear campaign spearheaded by your cronies in the media. I also came across an article that talked about how Ronnie Earle (democrat prosecutor from Texas) is retiring before the case against Tom delay will be brought to court. I think he is afraid of being Nifonged for that fact that he lacks any evidence to convict him and will later be sued for his actions of misconduct.

It seems that most of the accusations that you make against conservatives in power are based on hate and rage and prejudice against another man's beliefs. Isn't acceptance of differences one of the tenants of liberalism.

Your a Hypocrite!!!!!!!!!


It's really too bad CIA narco pilot Barry Seal was offed by Colombians claiming to be directed to kill by a US Lt Col. that sounded remarkably like Oliver North. Seal was about to testify in court about George H.W. Bush's involved in narco trafficking, his bagman, Noriega, and the Contras, when Seal was murdered

I was really looking forward to watching Seal's video of little Georgie and Jeb unloading an illegal cocaine shipment from a narco drug running aircraft.


wow

accusations and speculations

no evidence!!!!!!!!!!

Death_and_Taxes wrote:

american_patriot wrote:

Death_and_Taxes wrote:

american_patriot wrote:


George Bush and the rest of the government haven't cared about the Proper role
of government for many years, why should they start now? If they did, they would have to give up all the unconstitutional powers they now use, and abuse. I just don't see that happening, unless we the people make it happen.


Which unconstitutional powers are you referring to?

The presidential power to wage war? The powers voted to him by congress (Dems
included) I bet you can't find one Power he uses that is unconstitutional.



The President has no Constitutional authority to wage war. Congress has no Constitutitional authority to give it to him, unless they passed an amendment to the Constitution.
Then there are the Unconstitutional executive orders, which in effect is creating law. Only congress is granted the power by the Constitution to create laws. Then there is his signing statements, that basically say, he is signing a bill into law, but he doesn't have to abide by it if he doesn't want to. There, I hope that satifies you, I listed more than one.
Next time, go read the Constitution before you spout off your nonsense.


I mean seriously everyone out there that reads your post and knows anything about the administration of the government and the constitution is laughing at you. read what you wrote, "Congress has no Constitutional authority to give it to him, unless they passed an amendment to the Constitution." How stupid are you. do you know an amendment is?

Here read section 2 and 3 of Article 2 and section 8 of Article 1 in the constitution. I will even quote them on here because you are probably to lazy to go to the source.

Article. II. - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

Article. I. - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress,

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

and read this article-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause

Since World War II, Congress has formally authorized all the major military engagements that the US has undertaken. (Vietnam, Lebanon, Panama, Persian Gulf War, Afghanistan, and Iraq.)

And to the matter of Executive Orders, they are orders given by the president to carry out powers already granted to him under the constitution you dimwit.

You know what you lack so much knowledge about who things are carried out that you probably should go read about our government a little more before you post again.



Yes I am awars of the fact that Congress has the power to declare war. the problem is that they haven't issued a declaration of war against any country since WWII. Go look it up if you don't believe me. Every so-called "war" sone WWII has eithe been dones by a non-binding resolution from Congress, or the President has by-passed Congress and gone to to United Nation for authority.

As for excutive orders, you go read these executive orders, then read the Constitution, and tell me where in the Constitution it grants any President to do the things he is doing, let alone issue these orders.
Article 2 sections 2 and three list the specific powers granted to a President. If a power is not listed there, he has no authority to do it.
Also, take a look at article 2 section 8. It is an oath of office the President makes before taking office.
Well, George Bush and a great many presidents before him have been in violation of that oath, since they seem to have a total disregard for the Constitution. The same can be said about Congress as well.
It is obvious to me that you are completely loyal to George and his buddies, so pretty much anything you say, can not be trusted.

Death_and_Taxes wrote:

unaffiliated_person wrote:

Probably this one is a big one:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
Here is another:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/


Ahh, pure ignorance, where you have sited liberal bush hating media sources (discredited CNN) I will cut straight to the constitution and site the actual events and what has taken place in court.

Read section 2 and 3 of article 2 and section 8 of article 1 in the constitution.
then read this article from wikipedia-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

About a week after the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) which authorized the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Now tell me again what has the president done that is illegal. because none of your sources can prove or tell me anything that he has done that is against the law and powers authorized to him.

Also the only way that he can found to be out of order is if congress is able to pass a law saying so (good luck with that they can barely stand up to a stiff breeze) or if their is a court case that is brought successfully against him (as you can see from the article there haven't been any).

All your bush hating is only going to get you mad. I suggest you take a chill pill and realize that you have been played by the media and the entire left side of America.

Last of all I want to tell you what I read this morning. I came across an article that talked about the exoneration of Paul Wolfwitz of any wrong doing at the world bank. you should remember, that the campaign against him was a smear campaign spearheaded by your cronies in the media. I also came across an article that talked about how Ronnie Earle (democrat prosecutor from Texas) is retiring before the case against Tom delay will be brought to court. I think he is afraid of being Nifonged for that fact that he lacks any evidence to convict him and will later be sued for his actions of misconduct.

It seems that most of the accusations that you make against conservatives in power are based on hate and rage and prejudice against another man's beliefs. Isn't acceptance of differences one of the tenants of liberalism.

Your a Hypocrite!!!!!!!!!


Wikipedia is freely editable by anyone, so let's stick to third party sources:

bout a week after the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) which authorized the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Does this trump the constitution? The Partiot Act allows for warrantless search and seizure. That is specifically prohibited in the Constitution. In order for Congress to enact something that changes the Constitution, they must obtain a 2/3 majority and have it ratified by the states. That did not happen.
Wiretaps without judicial oversight are also unconstitutional and would require a change to the constitution.
By your own admission, it states "necessary and appropriate measures". Do you consider actions by a president that are unconstitutional to be "appropriate"?

Your insults reflect your biased views.

Death_and_Taxes wrote:

american_patriot wrote:


George Bush and the rest of the government haven't cared about the Proper role of government for many years, why should they start now? If they did, they would have to give up all the unconstitutional powers they now use, and abuse. I just don't see that happening, unless we the people make it happen.


Which unconstitutional powers are you referring to?

The presidential power to wage war? The powers voted to him by congress (Dems included) I bet you can't find one Power he uses that is unconstitutional.


You can't be that naive? I read a report a few weeks ago outlining and detailing approximately 30 abuses of power by Pres. Bush that are unconstitutional. The man is deceitful, arrogant and obsessed with power and his executive orders that give him dictatorial powers in the event of a national emergency were not created by accident or with good intentions.

I found this elsewhere that is an accurate summary of abuses:

They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.