Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 12/12/2005 2:59:51 AM EDT
According to our President.

Hope this is not a dupe as I looked/searched around for it to see if it was posted.........

www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml


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Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document.”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.”


Funny I never felt of it that way,
Mike

Link Posted: 12/12/2005 3:05:15 AM EDT
Sorry this is a dupe........., although I searched for "constitution" seems the serach missed this thread in the in Bear Pit.....

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=130&t=417124


Mods please delete this topic, since we have removed that option for the poster......


Apologies for the dupe.

Mike
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 11:52:36 AM EDT
No longer a dupe....pit's locked
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 9:00:27 PM EDT
Yup, Pit's been closed "pending further notification" for a while. You're golden.

That said, I don't believe Doug Thompson without further proof. Definitely, Bush isn't the biggest friend of the Const or BOR, nor of mine, but it's interesting that he's the only one saying it. You'd think it'd be a little more newsworthy, if true. It'd be nice if (again, if true) the MSM could get any defectors to corroborate. Until then, I call BS on Thompson, and will gladly eat crow if he proves me wrong.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 9:19:05 PM EDT
Bush....
He's no Franklin
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 7:26:51 PM EDT
He sure isnt.

We should have Elected John Kery instead. He would have put our country on the right track.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 3:15:16 PM EDT
wow, I was waiting for SOMEBOsay "this article is propaganda, full of it, complete nonsense.... no one is coming to the president's defense.

I'm not saying that Kerry would've been a great substitute, but the president does seem to be stomping on the constitution whenever it says something inconvenient.,,,
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:50:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By gunchyck:
wow, I was waiting for SOMEBOsay "this article is propaganda, full of it, complete nonsense.... no one is coming to the president's defense.

I'm not saying that Kerry would've been a great substitute, but the president does seem to be stomping on the constitution whenever it says something inconvenient.,,,


gunchyck,

You must've missed my post.

Also, I think you probably meant to say that "the President doesn't seem to be stomping on the Constitution.........."
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 6:38:10 PM EDT
Don't you guys get it? Today the constitution has no meaning. Politicians don't use the constitution because if they did, they couldn't have total power over the people.

Time for a revolution who's with me

Link Posted: 1/20/2006 11:36:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By wise_jake:

Originally Posted By gunchyck:
wow, I was waiting for SOMEBOsay "this article is propaganda, full of it, complete nonsense.... no one is coming to the president's defense.

I'm not saying that Kerry would've been a great substitute, but the president does seem to be stomping on the constitution whenever it says something inconvenient.,,,


gunchyck,

You must've missed my post.

Also, I think you probably meant to say that "the President doesn't seem to be stomping on the Constitution.........."



Yes, you said you don't trust the author, but....

Maybe I did miss something, didn't you say in your post "bush isn't the biggest friend of the constitution..."?

Link Posted: 1/20/2006 11:38:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By wise_jake:
Yup, Pit's been closed "pending further notification" for a while. You're golden.

That said, I don't believe Doug Thompson without further proof. Definitely, Bush isn't the biggest friend of the Const or BOR, nor of mine, but it's interesting that he's the only one saying it. You'd think it'd be a little more newsworthy, if true. It'd be nice if (again, if true) the MSM could get any defectors to corroborate. Until then, I call BS on Thompson, and will gladly eat crow if he proves me wrong.



All a big plus 1.
Bush (or any pol for that matter) may not respect, or even understand the Constitution, but I highly doubt he actually said that.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 1:34:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gunchyck:

Originally Posted By wise_jake:

Originally Posted By gunchyck:
wow, I was waiting for SOMEBOsay "this article is propaganda, full of it, complete nonsense.... no one is coming to the president's defense.

I'm not saying that Kerry would've been a great substitute, but the president does seem to be stomping on the constitution whenever it says something inconvenient.,,,


gunchyck,

You must've missed my post.

Also, I think you probably meant to say that "the President doesn't seem to be stomping on the Constitution.........."


Yes, you said you don't trust the author, but....

Maybe I did miss something, didn't you say in your post "bush isn't the biggest friend of the constitution..."?


Close: "Bush isn't the biggest friend of the Const or BOR". I also afforded them the honor(s) of capitalization.

Seriuosly, they're not. Nor has any President of the last I-don't-know-how-many years.

Bush is perched on the edge of History (capital H). Where are the executive orders putting our gun rights back the way the gov found them before they decided to tinker? He's got the time, he's not looking to get re-elected, there's no clear front-runner for him to pass the mantle to (unless Condi or someone similar decides to run, the next Repub candidate for Pres likely does *not* presently spend a lot of time at 1600, so would not be "tainted" as much by anything rash Bush were to do).

I'm not doing well putting it into words, but WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES for Bush to right a bunch of wrongs, to roll back on some of the encroachments of the last 30-40 yrs?
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 8:26:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By blue_bomber:
Don't you guys get it? Today the constitution has no meaning. Politicians don't use the constitution because if they did, they couldn't have total power over the people.

Time for a revolution who's with me




I'm with ya! Vote from the rooftops and let God sort them out.

BUT... only after I watch this Thursday's Primetime lineup.

And get some sleep.

And pay the bills for the month.

And get the kids to daycare.

I forgot little Timmy's hockey game this Saturday, how about we have the revolution next week?

Link Posted: 1/21/2006 1:32:30 AM EDT
I think George Bush has more respect for God than to use His name in that manner. He has also put one judge in place and attempting to put another who both interpret the Constitution correctly. I just don't buy this single story from a liberal rag. (If I have to eat crow later, I will do that too.)
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 5:19:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By martinmayhem:
I think George Bush has more respect for God than to use His name in that manner. He has also put one judge in place and attempting to put another who both interpret will read the Constitution correctly. I just don't buy this single story from a liberal rag. (If I have to eat crow later, I will do that too.)


Fixed (hopefully)
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 4:52:28 PM EDT
The article is BS for two reasons; a) no Republican is named as source. b) the incredible non sequitur of having Scalia's quote there as if what he said about CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS as being somehow "unconstitutional".

If we ever pass a Human Life Amendment and a Marriage Amendment then guess what? According to THE CONSTITUTION and ALL THE LAWS UNDERNEATH IT, a woman will NOT have a right to an abortion....in which case, the liberals will absolutely need to go back to Natural Law theory to vindicate their desires.

Ditto with Homosexuals - if the positive law is all there is (which is the basic premise of atheists) then if a majority of Americans pass the Marriage amendment, the gays will have no recourse but "Human rights" which themselves are based on and presuppose Natural Law - which is based on the concept of one single human moral code pertaining to all people regardless of culture or time period..,..but that conception of Homo Sapiens runs smack dab against their whole presupposition that they constitute an "alternative" morality or lifestyle.

So heads we win, tails you lose.

If you claim the current Constitution holds rights to abortion and gay marriage (which it doesn't), then your entire "system of rights" depends on a majority of SCOTUS judges maintaining this fiction.

OR, you would have to yourself pass an Abortion amendment or Gay Marriage amendment....

Short of that, two things are going to happen: either the current ideological balance of SCOTUS will change and those "discovered" rights will vanish into thin air (remember, Libs don't believe in Natural Law and therefore can't give cogent reasons to support "human rights"), or the Constitution will be amended specifically to grant human beings civil rights from the moment of conception - and Marriage will be defined as between one man and one woman.

The status quo then is 'a changin'.

Link Posted: 1/23/2006 3:32:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JusAdBellum:
Ditto with Homosexuals - if the positive law is all there is (which is the basic premise of atheists) then if a majority of Americans pass the Marriage amendment, the gays will have no recourse but "Human rights" which themselves are based on and presuppose Natural Law - which is based on the concept of one single human moral code pertaining to all people regardless of culture or time period..,..but that conception of Homo Sapiens runs smack dab against their whole presupposition that they constitute an "alternative" morality or lifestyle.

So heads we win, tails you lose.

If you claim the current Constitution holds rights to abortion and gay marriage (which it doesn't), then your entire "system of rights" depends on a majority of SCOTUS judges maintaining this fiction.

OR, you would have to yourself pass an Abortion amendment or Gay Marriage amendment....

Short of that, two things are going to happen: either the current ideological balance of SCOTUS will change and those "discovered" rights will vanish into thin air (remember, Libs don't believe in Natural Law and therefore can't give cogent reasons to support "human rights"), or the Constitution will be amended specifically to grant human beings civil rights from the moment of conception - and Marriage will be defined as between one man and one woman.

The status quo then is 'a changin'.





We should just let the gays be married.

They have as much right to be miserable as the rest of us.
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 8:35:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/27/2006 8:37:10 AM EDT by mytwocents]

Originally Posted By martinmayhem:
I think George Bush has more respect for God than to use His name in that manner. He has also put one judge in place and attempting to put another who both interpret the Constitution correctly. I just don't buy this single story from a liberal rag. (If I have to eat crow later, I will do that too.)



So when alito gets there machine gun bans and felons being denied gun ownership will be repealed?
Oh yeah i also forgot all drugs currently illegal will be legal when the supremes have a majority supposedly interpreting the constituion correctly.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 10:25:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mytwocents:

Originally Posted By martinmayhem:
I think George Bush has more respect for God than to use His name in that manner. He has also put one judge in place and attempting to put another who both interpret the Constitution correctly. I just don't buy this single story from a liberal rag. (If I have to eat crow later, I will do that too.)



So when alito gets there machine gun bans and felons being denied gun ownership will be repealed?
Oh yeah i also forgot all drugs currently illegal will be legal when the supremes have a majority supposedly interpreting the constituion correctly.



WTF are you trying to say? You a drug dealing felon?
Top Top