Does the POTUS have the right, as Pres & CinC, to violate the law & Bill of Rights?

[Mustang]

Not really. Such "questions" tend to be VERY much fact-specific.

What YOU might label a "violation" of "law," others may contend was NEVER a real "law" in the first place, for example.

And what YOU might contend was a violation of the Constitution, OTHERS might contend was never a violation in the first place.

So, yeah. It ALL comes down -- on a very much case by case basis -- to the FACTS of the specific case.

That's not necessarily so. Just because some people yell, "unconstitutional" every time something happens that they don't like, doesn't make it so.

Nixon CLEARLY broke the law with the Watergate burglary, the subsequent coverup and slush fund payments, and then engaged in obstruction of justice by trying to deny Congress their constitutional right to investigate the matter.

There was no ambiguity in that case, at all.

It was from that case that Hillary both learned to use a paper shredder, and to forget details. That sure saved her ass, later.

The only specific (and well-documented) example of a paper shredder being used in conjunction with a WH operation that I'm aware of is when Oliver North and Fawn Hall were shredding documents in the basement of the WH after the Iran-Contra scandal came to light. They admitted it.

 

[Intense]

That's not necessarily so. Just because some people yell, "unconstitutional" every time something happens that they don't like, doesn't make it so.

Nixon CLEARLY broke the law with the Watergate burglary, the subsequent coverup and slush fund payments, and then engaged in obstruction of justice by trying to deny Congress their constitutional right to investigate the matter.

There was no ambiguity in that case, at all.

It was from that case that Hillary both learned to use a paper shredder, and to forget details. That sure saved her ass, later.

The only specific (and well-documented) example of a paper shredder being used in conjunction with a WH operation is when Oliver North and Fawn Hall were shredding documents in the basement of the WH after the Iran-Contra scandal came to light.

You should be more careful about speaking in absolutes..... Tip of the Iceberg.....

The Clinton Crime Family
Bill Clinton has surrounded himself with criminals

Bill Clinton and Al Gore met with known criminals who either gave large amounts of money to the Democrats or were brought in by those giving huge sums of money to the Democrats. These people included convicted drug dealer Jorge Cabrera; a Chinese arms dealer named Wang Jun; and Grigory Lutchansky, whose company, Nordex, was on Clinton's CIA watch list and who was denied entry into Canada because he failed a background check.

There was also the appearance of foreign policy quid pro quos involving Indonesia, Paraguay, Guam, Vietnam and China. Even more disturbing are allegations of economic espionage, communist Chinese involvement in U.S. elections, and compromising U.S. national security - all in the name of helping the Democrats and securing Bill Clinton's reelection.

There were about 70 Congressional witnesses who have pled the Fifth Amendment right not to self-incriminate (or chosen to flee the country) in the Clinton-Gore dollars for political influence scam. In a round of testimony by FBI Director Louis Freeh before Congress, Rep. Dan Burton asked:
“Mr. Freeh, over 65 people have invoked the 5th Amendment or fled the country in the course of the Committee s investigation. Have you ever experienced so many unavailable witnesses in any matter in which you ve prosecuted or in which you ve been involved?”
Freeh responded: “Actually, I have.”
Burton asked: “You have? Give me, give me a rundown on that real quickly.”
Freeh: “I spent about 16 years doing organized crime cases in New York City...”

Bill Clinton and Al Gore have conspired with known criminals

Jorge Cabrera, a convicted felon from Florida, gave the DNC $20,000 and then attended a political reception in Miami at which Cabrera got his picture taken with Al Gore. Cabrera was soon invited to a December 1995 pre-Christmas event at the White House and was photographed with First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. The next month in January 1996, undercover agents arrested Cabrera with three tons of Colombian cocaine. Prior to Cabrera's January arrest, he had been arrested twice on drug charges, and pleaded guilty to non-drug-related charges in both cases. Cabrera is serving a 19-year prison sentence. (The Detroit News, 2/16/97; Miami Herald, 1/19/97; The Washington Post, 10/20/96)

Charlie TrieYah Lin "Charlie" Trie, President Clinton's longtime friend and a Democratic fund-raiser, was at the center of the 1996 United States campaign finance controversy and eventually pleaded guilty to two charges in his Arkansas trial (May 21, 1999). Trie plead guilty to a felony charge of causing false statements and a misdemeanor count of making political contributions in the names of others.

It was Charlie Trie who arranged for international Chinese weapons dealer, Wang Jun, chairman of CITIC, the chief investment arm of the PRC, and Poly Technologies (a "front company for the PRC military") to meet with Mr. Clinton at a Democrat Party event at the White House on Feb. 6, 1996. CITIC Ka Wah Bank includes 28 branches in Hong Kong, a branch in Macau, a branch in Shanghai and its PRC-incorporated wholly-owned subsidiary, CITIC Ka Wah Bank (China) Limited, which is headquartered in Shenzhen with branches in Shanghai and Beijing. The Bank also has branches in New York and Los Angeles.

At the time Clinton met with Wang, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the Customs Service were wrapping up an investigation which caught Wang's company smuggling at least $4 million worth of 2,000 illegal AK-47 assault weapons destined for gang members in California. President Clinton later admitted Wang's attendance at the White House was "clearly inappropriate."

The Clinton Crime Family

 

[Mustang]

Here is what our response should look like every time He ignores the Constitution.


===========================================================
In The
Supreme Court of the United States
--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al.,
Respondents.
--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari
To The United States Court Of Appeals
For The Eleventh Circuit
--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
LANDMARK LEGAL FOUNDATION
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------




http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Supreme%20Court%20FL%20Obamacare%20Amicus.pdf

What I gather from a brief reading of Levin's law firm's legal brief is that he is challenging the constitutionality of the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (which is commonly referred to as Obamacare). That was a Bill that Congress passed and President Obama signed into law. The constitionality of that law will be decided in the SC, probably next year.

However, that law is not a single act of the President of the United States acting under his sole authority as president and commander in chief. A better example, if you could find one, would be an executive order, issued by any president, that either violates the law, or denies someone or some group, their rights under the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution

He has allot more influence than you are giving him credit for in relation to Health Care Legislation. Plenty of example there of ignoring Law and Precedent. His finger prints are all over that. In relation to Executive Orders, in relation to Drone Attacks and flying over Sovereign Territory, He is way off of the Reservation. I guess he is practicing for when he becomes Caliphate.

Congress authorized the use of military force. Actually, the granted the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force..." Many people believe that drone attacks, in general, fall into the category of 'necessary and appropriate force'.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You would have a FAR better case if you would have cited the Obama Administration's targeting of an ex patriot American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, for death in a drone attack in another country. Many people make the argument that al-Awlaki was denied his constitutional rights to due process.

 

[Intense]

What I gather from a brief reading of Levin's law firm's legal brief is that he is challenging the constitutionality of the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (which is commonly referred to as Obamacare). That was a Bill that Congress passed and President Obama signed into law. The constitionality of that law will be decided in the SC, probably next year.

However, that law is not a single act of the President of the United States acting under his sole authority as president and commander in chief. A better example, if you could find one, would be an executive order, issued by any president, that either violates the law, or denies someone or some group, their rights under the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution

He has allot more influence than you are giving him credit for in relation to Health Care Legislation. Plenty of example there of ignoring Law and Precedent. His finger prints are all over that. In relation to Executive Orders, in relation to Drone Attacks and flying over Sovereign Territory, He is way off of the Reservation. I guess he is practicing for when he becomes Caliphate.

Congress authorized the use of military force. Actually, the granted the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force..." Many people believe that drone attacks, in general, fall into the category necessary and appropriate force.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You would have a FAR better case if you would have cited the Obama Administration's targeting of a ex patriot American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, for death in a drone attack. Many people make the argument that al-Awlaki was denied his constitutional rights to due process.

I'm just citing examples. There is just too much to choose from. We are setting the tone for Drone Surveillance in the years to come. Think about that. We have crossed the line by far in what we try to get away with. It will come back to bite us in the ass.

Here is link on the ACLU that should be a wake up call. I know you have never witnessed Enumerated Powers in your life time, and that the concept is alien to you, I guess questioning why, seems like a path you would want to avoid too. Just think about it.

But this government surveillance activity is not directed solely at suspected terrorists and criminals. It is directed at all of us. Increasingly, the government is engaged in warrantless surveillance that vacuums up sensitive information about innocent people. And this surveillance takes place in secret, with little or no oversight by the courts, by Congress, or by the public.
Make a Difference

Using their power to collect massive amounts of private communications and data, agencies like the FBI and the National Security Agency (NSA) apply computer programs to draw links and make predictions about people’s behavior. Tracking people two, three, four steps removed from the original surveillance target, they build “communities of interest” and construct maps of our associations and activities.

With this sensitive data, the government can compile vast dossiers about innocent people. The data sits indefinitely in government databases, and the names of many innocent Americans end up on bloated and inaccurate watch lists that affect whether we can fly on commercial airlines, whether we can renew our passports, whether we are called aside for “secondary screening” at airports and borders, and even whether we can open bank accounts.

Dragnet surveillance undermines the right to privacy and the freedoms of speech, association, and religion.

Surveillance & Privacy - Recent Court Cases, Issues and Articles | American Civil Liberties Union

 

[Mustang]

It was from that case that Hillary both learned to use a paper shredder, and to forget details. That sure saved her ass, later.

The only specific (and well-documented) example of a paper shredder being used in conjunction with a WH operation is when Oliver North and Fawn Hall were shredding documents in the basement of the WH after the Iran-Contra scandal came to light.

You should be more careful about speaking in absolutes..... Tip of the Iceberg.....

The Clinton Crime Family
Bill Clinton has surrounded himself with criminals

Bill Clinton and Al Gore met with known criminals who either gave large amounts of money to the Democrats or were brought in by those giving huge sums of money to the Democrats. These people included convicted drug dealer Jorge Cabrera; a Chinese arms dealer named Wang Jun; and Grigory Lutchansky, whose company, Nordex, was on Clinton's CIA watch list and who was denied entry into Canada because he failed a background check.

There was also the appearance of foreign policy quid pro quos involving Indonesia, Paraguay, Guam, Vietnam and China. Even more disturbing are allegations of economic espionage, communist Chinese involvement in U.S. elections, and compromising U.S. national security - all in the name of helping the Democrats and securing Bill Clinton's reelection.

There were about 70 Congressional witnesses who have pled the Fifth Amendment right not to self-incriminate (or chosen to flee the country) in the Clinton-Gore dollars for political influence scam. In a round of testimony by FBI Director Louis Freeh before Congress, Rep. Dan Burton asked:
“Mr. Freeh, over 65 people have invoked the 5th Amendment or fled the country in the course of the Committee s investigation. Have you ever experienced so many unavailable witnesses in any matter in which you ve prosecuted or in which you ve been involved?”
Freeh responded: “Actually, I have.”
Burton asked: “You have? Give me, give me a rundown on that real quickly.”
Freeh: “I spent about 16 years doing organized crime cases in New York City...”

Bill Clinton and Al Gore have conspired with known criminals

Jorge Cabrera, a convicted felon from Florida, gave the DNC $20,000 and then attended a political reception in Miami at which Cabrera got his picture taken with Al Gore. Cabrera was soon invited to a December 1995 pre-Christmas event at the White House and was photographed with First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. The next month in January 1996, undercover agents arrested Cabrera with three tons of Colombian cocaine. Prior to Cabrera's January arrest, he had been arrested twice on drug charges, and pleaded guilty to non-drug-related charges in both cases. Cabrera is serving a 19-year prison sentence. (The Detroit News, 2/16/97; Miami Herald, 1/19/97; The Washington Post, 10/20/96)

Charlie TrieYah Lin "Charlie" Trie, President Clinton's longtime friend and a Democratic fund-raiser, was at the center of the 1996 United States campaign finance controversy and eventually pleaded guilty to two charges in his Arkansas trial (May 21, 1999). Trie plead guilty to a felony charge of causing false statements and a misdemeanor count of making political contributions in the names of others.

It was Charlie Trie who arranged for international Chinese weapons dealer, Wang Jun, chairman of CITIC, the chief investment arm of the PRC, and Poly Technologies (a "front company for the PRC military") to meet with Mr. Clinton at a Democrat Party event at the White House on Feb. 6, 1996. CITIC Ka Wah Bank includes 28 branches in Hong Kong, a branch in Macau, a branch in Shanghai and its PRC-incorporated wholly-owned subsidiary, CITIC Ka Wah Bank (China) Limited, which is headquartered in Shenzhen with branches in Shanghai and Beijing. The Bank also has branches in New York and Los Angeles.

At the time Clinton met with Wang, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the Customs Service were wrapping up an investigation which caught Wang's company smuggling at least $4 million worth of 2,000 illegal AK-47 assault weapons destined for gang members in California. President Clinton later admitted Wang's attendance at the White House was "clearly inappropriate."

The Clinton Crime Family

I'm not interested in cut and paste posts from partisan sites which are only interested in creating partisan discord. I've seen and heard these things before, just like I've heard the stories about George Bush Sr running cocaine up to the US from central America. They don't do anything other than distract people from the issues.

Additionally, I'm not talking about the type of offenses where people try (even if and when they succeed) at buying influence by dangling campaign contributions in front of candidates or politicians engaged in winning elections or reelections.

I'm talking about whether or not a President (ANY President) of the United States has the right to clearly break the law or violate the Bill of Rights of a citizen or a group of citizens. Does any president have that right, as president, and as the commander-in-chief?

Maybe the greatest example of that theory of governance is when Nixon said to David Frost, something to the effect that 'If the President Does It, That Means It's Not Illegal'

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8]Nixon - When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal - YouTube[/ame]

Do people agree or disagree with that statement?

 

[Intense]

The only specific (and well-documented) example of a paper shredder being used in conjunction with a WH operation is when Oliver North and Fawn Hall were shredding documents in the basement of the WH after the Iran-Contra scandal came to light.

You should be more careful about speaking in absolutes..... Tip of the Iceberg.....

The Clinton Crime Family
Bill Clinton has surrounded himself with criminals

Bill Clinton and Al Gore met with known criminals who either gave large amounts of money to the Democrats or were brought in by those giving huge sums of money to the Democrats. These people included convicted drug dealer Jorge Cabrera; a Chinese arms dealer named Wang Jun; and Grigory Lutchansky, whose company, Nordex, was on Clinton's CIA watch list and who was denied entry into Canada because he failed a background check.

There was also the appearance of foreign policy quid pro quos involving Indonesia, Paraguay, Guam, Vietnam and China. Even more disturbing are allegations of economic espionage, communist Chinese involvement in U.S. elections, and compromising U.S. national security - all in the name of helping the Democrats and securing Bill Clinton's reelection.

There were about 70 Congressional witnesses who have pled the Fifth Amendment right not to self-incriminate (or chosen to flee the country) in the Clinton-Gore dollars for political influence scam. In a round of testimony by FBI Director Louis Freeh before Congress, Rep. Dan Burton asked:
“Mr. Freeh, over 65 people have invoked the 5th Amendment or fled the country in the course of the Committee s investigation. Have you ever experienced so many unavailable witnesses in any matter in which you ve prosecuted or in which you ve been involved?”
Freeh responded: “Actually, I have.”
Burton asked: “You have? Give me, give me a rundown on that real quickly.”
Freeh: “I spent about 16 years doing organized crime cases in New York City...”

Bill Clinton and Al Gore have conspired with known criminals

Jorge Cabrera, a convicted felon from Florida, gave the DNC $20,000 and then attended a political reception in Miami at which Cabrera got his picture taken with Al Gore. Cabrera was soon invited to a December 1995 pre-Christmas event at the White House and was photographed with First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. The next month in January 1996, undercover agents arrested Cabrera with three tons of Colombian cocaine. Prior to Cabrera's January arrest, he had been arrested twice on drug charges, and pleaded guilty to non-drug-related charges in both cases. Cabrera is serving a 19-year prison sentence. (The Detroit News, 2/16/97; Miami Herald, 1/19/97; The Washington Post, 10/20/96)

Charlie TrieYah Lin "Charlie" Trie, President Clinton's longtime friend and a Democratic fund-raiser, was at the center of the 1996 United States campaign finance controversy and eventually pleaded guilty to two charges in his Arkansas trial (May 21, 1999). Trie plead guilty to a felony charge of causing false statements and a misdemeanor count of making political contributions in the names of others.

It was Charlie Trie who arranged for international Chinese weapons dealer, Wang Jun, chairman of CITIC, the chief investment arm of the PRC, and Poly Technologies (a "front company for the PRC military") to meet with Mr. Clinton at a Democrat Party event at the White House on Feb. 6, 1996. CITIC Ka Wah Bank includes 28 branches in Hong Kong, a branch in Macau, a branch in Shanghai and its PRC-incorporated wholly-owned subsidiary, CITIC Ka Wah Bank (China) Limited, which is headquartered in Shenzhen with branches in Shanghai and Beijing. The Bank also has branches in New York and Los Angeles.

At the time Clinton met with Wang, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the Customs Service were wrapping up an investigation which caught Wang's company smuggling at least $4 million worth of 2,000 illegal AK-47 assault weapons destined for gang members in California. President Clinton later admitted Wang's attendance at the White House was "clearly inappropriate."

The Clinton Crime Family

I'm not interested in cut and paste posts from partisan sites which are only interested in creating partisan discord. I've seen and heard these things before, just like I've heard the stories about George Bush Sr running cocaine up to the US from central America. They don't do anything other than distract people from the issues.

Additionally, I'm not talking about the type of offenses where people try (even if and when they succeed) at buying influence by dangling campaign contributions in front of candidates or politicians engaged in winning elections or reelections.

I'm talking about whether or not a President (ANY President) of the United States has the right to clearly break the law or violate the Bill of Rights of a citizen or a group of citizens. Does any president have that right, as president, and as the commander-in-chief?

Maybe the greatest example of that theory of governance is when Nixon said to David Frost, something to the effect that 'If the President Does It, That Means It's Not Illegal'

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8]Nixon - When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal - YouTube[/ame]

Do people agree or disagree with that statement?

No One is above the Law. Show Due Process, whether it is available to the Public or not, is not the issue. Rule of Law, Checks and Balances are. It is a Question Nobody should not know the answer to. In the Fight to Establish and maintain Justice in a Just Society, Tyranny needs to be battled on every front, wherever we find it.

Whether you approve of my Clinton Source or not, there is truth in it, which serves as a reminder of Corruption and Injustice, at the highest levels. You have no clue as to the extent of the damage done.

 

[Mustang]

You should be more careful about speaking in absolutes..... Tip of the Iceberg.....

The Clinton Crime Family
Bill Clinton has surrounded himself with criminals

Bill Clinton and Al Gore met with known criminals who either gave large amounts of money to the Democrats or were brought in by those giving huge sums of money to the Democrats. These people included convicted drug dealer Jorge Cabrera; a Chinese arms dealer named Wang Jun; and Grigory Lutchansky, whose company, Nordex, was on Clinton's CIA watch list and who was denied entry into Canada because he failed a background check.

There was also the appearance of foreign policy quid pro quos involving Indonesia, Paraguay, Guam, Vietnam and China. Even more disturbing are allegations of economic espionage, communist Chinese involvement in U.S. elections, and compromising U.S. national security - all in the name of helping the Democrats and securing Bill Clinton's reelection.

There were about 70 Congressional witnesses who have pled the Fifth Amendment right not to self-incriminate (or chosen to flee the country) in the Clinton-Gore dollars for political influence scam. In a round of testimony by FBI Director Louis Freeh before Congress, Rep. Dan Burton asked:
“Mr. Freeh, over 65 people have invoked the 5th Amendment or fled the country in the course of the Committee s investigation. Have you ever experienced so many unavailable witnesses in any matter in which you ve prosecuted or in which you ve been involved?”
Freeh responded: “Actually, I have.”
Burton asked: “You have? Give me, give me a rundown on that real quickly.”
Freeh: “I spent about 16 years doing organized crime cases in New York City...”

Bill Clinton and Al Gore have conspired with known criminals

Jorge Cabrera, a convicted felon from Florida, gave the DNC $20,000 and then attended a political reception in Miami at which Cabrera got his picture taken with Al Gore. Cabrera was soon invited to a December 1995 pre-Christmas event at the White House and was photographed with First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. The next month in January 1996, undercover agents arrested Cabrera with three tons of Colombian cocaine. Prior to Cabrera's January arrest, he had been arrested twice on drug charges, and pleaded guilty to non-drug-related charges in both cases. Cabrera is serving a 19-year prison sentence. (The Detroit News, 2/16/97; Miami Herald, 1/19/97; The Washington Post, 10/20/96)

Charlie TrieYah Lin "Charlie" Trie, President Clinton's longtime friend and a Democratic fund-raiser, was at the center of the 1996 United States campaign finance controversy and eventually pleaded guilty to two charges in his Arkansas trial (May 21, 1999). Trie plead guilty to a felony charge of causing false statements and a misdemeanor count of making political contributions in the names of others.

It was Charlie Trie who arranged for international Chinese weapons dealer, Wang Jun, chairman of CITIC, the chief investment arm of the PRC, and Poly Technologies (a "front company for the PRC military") to meet with Mr. Clinton at a Democrat Party event at the White House on Feb. 6, 1996. CITIC Ka Wah Bank includes 28 branches in Hong Kong, a branch in Macau, a branch in Shanghai and its PRC-incorporated wholly-owned subsidiary, CITIC Ka Wah Bank (China) Limited, which is headquartered in Shenzhen with branches in Shanghai and Beijing. The Bank also has branches in New York and Los Angeles.

At the time Clinton met with Wang, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the Customs Service were wrapping up an investigation which caught Wang's company smuggling at least $4 million worth of 2,000 illegal AK-47 assault weapons destined for gang members in California. President Clinton later admitted Wang's attendance at the White House was "clearly inappropriate."

The Clinton Crime Family

I'm not interested in cut and paste posts from partisan sites which are only interested in creating partisan discord. I've seen and heard these things before, just like I've heard the stories about George Bush Sr running cocaine up to the US from central America. They don't do anything other than distract people from the issues.

Additionally, I'm not talking about the type of offenses where people try (even if and when they succeed) at buying influence by dangling campaign contributions in front of candidates or politicians engaged in winning elections or reelections.

I'm talking about whether or not a President (ANY President) of the United States has the right to clearly break the law or violate the Bill of Rights of a citizen or a group of citizens. Does any president have that right, as president, and as the commander-in-chief?

Maybe the greatest example of that theory of governance is when Nixon said to David Frost, something to the effect that 'If the President Does It, That Means It's Not Illegal'

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8"]Nixon - When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal - YouTube[/ame]

Do people agree or disagree with that statement?

No One is above the Law. Show Due Process, whether it is available to the Public or not, is not the issue. Rule of Law, Checks and Balances are. It is a Question Nobody should not know the answer to. In the Fight to Establish and maintain Justice in a Just Society, Tyranny needs to be battled on every front, wherever we find it.

Whether you approve of my Clinton Source or not, there is truth in it, which serves as a reminder of Corruption and Injustice, at the highest levels. You have no clue as to the extent of the damage done.

So, you're a no vote. Then the only question is what would you say if you found that there was clear evidence that a Republican president engaged in breaking the law and/or the Bill of Rights? Would you condemn him?

 

[Oddball]

[

I'm not interested in cut and paste posts from partisan sites which are only interested in creating partisan discord.

No, you're only disinterested when the violator is on your team.

Clintoon was every bit as much of an knowing and willing crook as Nixon & Bush sr. were.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I didn't vote by checking a box, I voted by stating my belief. Rights are protected and cannot be lost without due process of the law. I don't give a fuck who is president they have no right to do it.

Correct.

The president is not above the law, he is indeed subject to the rule of law, as codified by the Constitution. See: US v. Nixon (1974).

The president's actions are subject to due process.

The problem is, however, the courts refuse to intervene in conflicts between the Legislative and Executive in matters concerning use of the military and declartions of war. See: Dellums v. Bush (1990).

Consequently issues such as extra-judicial killings will be addressed only in the political arena.

 

[DiamondDave]

Wasn't right when FDR did it, when Lincoln did it, and not right now

 

[ladyliberal]

Does the President have the right to violate the law or the constitution? What kind of right? Clearly, he does not have a legal right to violate the law or a constitutional right to violate the constitution (though, I suppose an unconstitutional law could give him the legal right to violate the constitution [such as, arguably, the Patriot Act]). However, I think in certain circumstances the president could have a moral right to violate the law. I don't believe that our legal system is a substitute for morality, so I believe there are certain circumstances in which the illegal is nevertheless moral.

There might arise, for example, a situation in which the President had the opportunity to prevent a nuclear strike against a civilian population, but was statutorily bound from doing something necessary to accomplishing this. In such a circumstance, I think violating the statute would often be justified.

That being said, it is difficult for me to think of occasions in which presidents violated the law in a manner of which I approve. They seem far outweighed by those occasions in which presidents or their subordinates violated the law in a way which seems to me immoral.

 

[Charles_Main]

Wasn't right when FDR did it, when Lincoln did it, and not right now

I agree with you on FDR, but think it is not fair to compare Lincoln to it. Lincoln was after all Dealing with a Civil War, Open Rebellion against the Government. Clearly a National Emergency that one could argue warranted much of what he did. Indeed most Historians would agree if he had not done most of what he did. America would be 2 Countries today. At least.

FDR on the other hand, over reacted on a Huge scale, and interned 250,000 American Citizens of Japanese Decent. The War with Japan, warranted scrutiny of those 250,000 Americans, Surveillance maybe, and perhaps in some select cases Imprisonment, but to intern them all like that was clearly a huge assault on the constitution.

 

[Charles_Main]

Here is a scenario where I would want the President to be able to suspend certain Rights.

Either a Natural or man Produced Out break of a serious Contagious Disease. In a case like that we would want to be able to Restrict peoples ability to Travel, and in some cases Quarantine areas. Detain people who attempt to travel and possibly spread the disease.

If some nightmare Super Bug like that ever happens and we can not quickly stop the Free and open movement of people by land, air and Sea around this Country, the Bug could move from one city to every corner of America in a matter of Days.

 

[bripat9643]

Stated again a little more clearly than the subject line allows...

Does the President of the United States have the right, as both President and Commander in Chief to break the law or violate the Constitutional protections afforded to Americans under the Bill of Rights (the 1st 10 Amendments to the US Constitution?

I'm a libertarian, and the answer is an emphatic "no." It's not a matter of opinion. The government never has license to violate the Bill of Rights, or any other part of the Constitution, wartime or not.

 

[bripat9643]

Wasn't right when FDR did it, when Lincoln did it, and not right now

I agree with you on FDR, but think it is not fair to compare Lincoln to it. Lincoln was after all Dealing with a Civil War, Open Rebellion against the Government. Clearly a National Emergency that one could argue warranted much of what he did. Indeed most Historians would agree if he had not done most of what he did. America would be 2 Countries today. At least.

Sorry, but Lincoln had no authority to do any of the things he did. The Constitution did not give him authority to shut down news papers, suspend habeas corpus, arrest the governor and state senate of Maryland, destroy private property, execute American citizens without a trial or commit any of the other heinous atrocities he committed. The Confederate states seceded, which is entirely legal. There was no "rebellion."

 

[pegwinn]

A better example, if you could find one, would be an executive order, issued by any president, that either violates the law, or denies someone or some group, their rights under the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution

How about the concentration camps used on the west coast during WWII to cage the Japanese Americans?

edit: uh oh. This is what I get for surfing late and not reading every last post.

OK, how about the Indian Reservations? Are they the equal of internment camps? Or, are they granting special rights to one ethnic group (Indians) over everyone else based on race?

 

[jillian]

Perhaps if you explain how he is doing so?

At its heart, this is a Constitutional question. As such, the specific laws that are (assumed to be) broken by this or any other president are less relevant than whether or not the president has a right to do so as president and commander in chief.

to answer a constitutional question, there would have to be a specific set of facts. moreover, whether there has been some violation of law or the constitution is a conclusion and would be what an inquiry by the court would ascertain.

so your question is kind of a non question.

 

[jillian]

A better example, if you could find one, would be an executive order, issued by any president, that either violates the law, or denies someone or some group, their rights under the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution

How about the concentration camps used on the west coast during WWII to cage the Japanese Americans?

edit: uh oh. This is what I get for surfing late and not reading every last post.

OK, how about the Indian Reservations? Are they the equal of internment camps? Or, are they granting special rights to one ethnic group (Indians) over everyone else based on race?

unfortunately, Korematsu v. United States is still good law. one of the three worst court decisions ever written... along with dred scott and citizen's united.

 

[Oddball]

unfortunately, Korematsu v. United States is still good law. one of the three worst court decisions ever written... along with dred scott and citizen's united.

...Marbury v. Madison....Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific....Roe v. Wade....Kelo v. New Haven.....

BTW, I have yet to hear from you which law Laura Kriho violated...

 

[Mustang]

Perhaps if you explain how he is doing so?

At its heart, this is a Constitutional question. As such, the specific laws that are (assumed to be) broken by this or any other president are less relevant than whether or not the president has a right to do so as president and commander in chief.

to answer a constitutional question, there would have to be a specific set of facts. moreover, whether there has been some violation of law or the constitution is a conclusion and would be what an inquiry by the court would ascertain.

so your question is kind of a non question.

There only has to be a specific set of facts if the Supreme Court was being asked to rule on the constitutionality of a new law.

Otherwise, this is a pretty cut and dry question about whether or not the POTUS as president and CinC has the legal and constitutional authority to ignore laws and violate the constitutional rights of American citizens in certain circumstances.