Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Bush on the Constitution


tex

Recommended Posts

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

Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a g*ddamned 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 g*ddamn,” 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 g*ddamned 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 g*ddamned piece of paper.”

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the **** that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that “g*ddamned 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Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document.”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 g*ddamned piece of paper.”

© Copyright 2005 by Capitol Hill Blue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw that earlier, but didn't post it. Even I'm not sure how reputable that source is! :)

It seems to be a recurring theme that the president "blows up" when he gets news he doesn't like, though.

All I know is that if Clinton was even RUMORED of saying that Repubs would have been up in arms calling for impeachment. The ol' double standard...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, I follow the wisdom of our COMMANDER IN CHIEF. If he does not like it, I do not like it. What kind of conservative are you? Probably a defeatist lefty!

1 man should never have the capabilty of destroying the ideals that built this country, and is the foundation of our entire system. The leaders and the people have supported the constitution for hundreds of years, and the thought of 1 man deciding to pitch it into the trash makes me absolutely sick. I agree that we must support our president, but he is just a man therefore fallible (this has been proven by previous presidents) and it should not be left up to just him to change at his will.

Remember: FOR the people, BY the people and OF the people.... not just the president

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was not a spoof article, but one of a serious nature. I saw it earlier, but the last time I posted something from that site, it wasn't well received. Why? Because the man from the website posts articles that do not show the President in a good light.

Man, I follow the wisdom of our COMMANDER IN CHIEF. If he does not like it, I do not like it. What kind of conservative are you? Probably a defeatist lefty!

Now, I was hoping that this was posted in humour!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, as an added note, if the President's remark is true, it shouldn't be surprising in some ways. The Constitution has been eroded over the last two decades, and it hasn't stopped under Bush. With the passing of the Patriot Act, a document that was passed in the dead of night without any members of Congress actually seeing the actual act, and now Patriot Act II which makes it very easy for any American to be a "terrorist," this shouldn't be surprising. The Constitutional state of this nation is at risk, and most folks have no idea. It is a shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was not a spoof article, but one of a serious nature. I saw it earlier, but the last time I posted something from that site, it wasn't well received. Why? Because the man from the website posts articles that do not show the President in a good light.

Or because of his tendacy to make stuff up. This article is a perfect example.

It actually made me laugh, it was that pathetic. :laugh: :laugh:

I mean...if you're going to do write something like that at least do a decent job. Here, I'll show what he should have said:

Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a g*ddamned piece of paper'

By DOUG THOMPSON

Dec 9, 2005, 07:53

Last month, Republican Congressional members and 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 among liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, who are always angry about something. They have joined forces with little known conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal. A recent poll showed that the 300 million other Americans don't give "two ****s" about the Patriot Act as it has not stopped them from buying Xbox 360s and filling up their SUVs.

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, to which Bush replied, "Harriet who? I don’t give a goshdarn who's elin- ale- alienaded. I’m the President Bush b***h!"

“Mr. President,” one traitor 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 in a surpisingly high tone. “It’s just a goshdarn piece of wrinkled paper! ”

I’ve talked to three people who said they were present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goshdarn wrinked piece of paper.”

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is more than toilet paper stained from all the **** that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that “goshdarn piece of paper” used to guarantee. To them that "goshdarn" piece of paper is also handy in making paper planes.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document. It's like 100 years old! It's not even in Times New Roman”

Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn’t matter if you are a Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Green party. 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 prostitution 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.”

Pete had no comment.

As a judge, Scalia says, “I don't have to prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it's perfect.”

President Bush has proposed seventyteen amendments to the Constitution over the last five years, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a “union between a man and ape.” Members of Congress have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to arm bears 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, it's more like a three-way”

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 or so we're told and, as one brave and couragous 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 goshdarn piece of paper.”

***

Seriously though, if there were only Republican leaders there why would they talk to this guy? And what would be the purpose of a Republican leader telling a extreme Bush hater that Bush said that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capitolhillblue has a reputation of publishing "Onion" like articles, the difference being they claim that their articles aren't spoofs. If you believe this article, PM me immediately -- I have some property in Florida I'd like to sell you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I dont see this being a real article, I find it funny how activist judges basically make up what they think the Consitution means, and the left never gets mad.

Haha, because if we never changed the Constitution we would still have slavery, women could not vote, and the civil rights movement would be for naught. Its funny how the right complains bout changing the Constitution only when black people and women can vote, but they have no problems altering the Constitution when it suits THEIR needs (cough cough Patriot Act).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha, because if we never changed the Constitution we would still have slavery, women could not vote, and the civil rights movement would be for naught. Its funny how the right complains bout changing the Constitution only when black people and women can vote, but they have no problems altering the Constitution when it suits THEIR needs (cough cough Patriot Act).

Yea, I have a problem with blacks and women :doh:

Show me ANYWHERE in the Constitution where it was altered because of the PATRIOT ACT. OH thats right, it wasnt altered at all. That requires an AMENDMENT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I really suspect the authenticity of this article, (make that "really, really, really, suspect . . . ")

Is it really that much of a stretch from a man who has argued, in open court, that the US Constitution doesn't apply to the State of Texas, and that the words "commander in chief" means "authority to decide that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to a citizen, if he writes an unsigned, private, memo to himself"?

To someone who thinks that "Presidential Security" authorises him to arrest anyone who's near his motorcade route, if they're holding a sign that doesn't agree with him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, I have a problem with blacks and women :doh:

Show me ANYWHERE in the Constitution where it was altered because of the PATRIOT ACT. OH thats right, it wasnt altered at all. That requires an AMENDMENT.

Wow, way to misread my post. Ok, IF activist judges altered the constitution to expand the application of the bill of rights to women and minorities, what is your problem with that? And the Patriot Act infringes on our Constitutional rights, see, you can make laws, have them passed, and THEN they can get reviewed based on their Constitutional merit. Hence the REVIEW of laws. You imply that because it has not been reviewed yet, it is somehow constitutionally valid. Am I getting the gist of your argument?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, way to misread my post. Ok, IF activist judges altered the constitution to expand the application of the bill of rights to women and minorities, what is your problem with that? And the Patriot Act infringes on our Constitutional rights, see, you can make laws, have them passed, and THEN they can get reviewed based on their Constitutional merit. Hence the REVIEW of laws. You imply that because it has not been reviewed yet, it is somehow constitutionally valid. Am I getting the gist of your argument?

But, you didn't say that. You said this:

"...but they have no problems altering the Constitution when it suits THEIR needs (cough cough Patriot Act)."

I'm sure you now can see the reasoning behind his post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“I don’t give a g*ddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

This is the begining of the BS, instead of "do it my way" he'd of said "what do we do now"

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a g*ddamned piece of paper!”

Here he'd have said, "what this piece of paper will someone read it to me"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, you didn't say that. You said this:

"...but they have no problems altering the Constitution when it suits THEIR needs (cough cough Patriot Act)."

I'm sure you now can see the reasoning behind his post.

"Haha, because if we never changed the Constitution we would still have slavery, women could not vote, and the civil rights movement would be for naught. Its funny how the right complains bout changing the Constitution only when black people and women can vote, but they have no problems altering the Constitution when it suits THEIR needs (cough cough Patriot Act)."

Ok, so I should not have said "altering" in terms of the Patriot Act, but but he did not answer anything regarding what I said. To indict all activist judges as somehow bad for the US ignores US history. Without judicial activism, "we would still have slavery, women could not vote, and the civil rights movement would be for naught." The Patriot Act thing was dumb of me to say, and not a particularly strong element of my argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Haha, because if we never changed the Constitution we would still have slavery, women could not vote, and the civil rights movement would be for naught. Its funny how the right complains bout changing the Constitution only when black people and women can vote, but they have no problems altering the Constitution when it suits THEIR needs (cough cough Patriot Act)."

Ok, so I should not have said "altering" in terms of the Patriot Act, but but he did not answer anything regarding what I said. To indict all activist judges as somehow bad for the US ignores US history. Without judicial activism, "we would still have slavery, women could not vote, and the civil rights movement would be for naught." The Patriot Act thing was dumb of me to say, and not a particularly strong element of my argument.

Judicial activism did not give women the right to vote. That would be the population coming to terms with women voting, and the legislature they elected changing the Constitution with an amendment. So, you are wrong again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judicial activism did not give women the right to vote. That would be the population coming to terms with women voting, and the legislature they elected changing the Constitution with an amendment. So, you are wrong again.

Whoops, my bad, overstepped my boundries. What about segregation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...