George W. Bush is in Contempt of Congress. Should he be prosecuted?

[DeadCanDance]

I've never had a problem with justices that stay within founding documents and British common law. I do have problems with international treaties, much less ruling from IC, etc.

Oh, I thought you said that there was no constitutional basis for judicial review. My bad.

It appears that we both agree that judicial review and executive privledge are easily construed from original intent, as published in the Federalist Papers.

 

[Annie]

Oh, I thought you said that there was no constitutional basis for judicial review. My bad.

It appears that we both agree that judicial review and executive privledge are easily construed from original intent, as published in the Federalist Papers.

In the same sense as no constitutional basis for executive privilege.

 

[Edward]

Unless the Court rules against the President HE DOES have Executive Power in this matter.


No he doesn't.

At best, Bush asserts that executive privledge protect him for recieving private consultation and advice from his counselors and advisors.

The white house has said the the White House and Bush were not involved in the consultatations and meetings pertaining to firing the US Attorneys. They merely signed off on it, after Department of Justice made the decisions.

So, either the White House is lying, and they were involved - or Executive Privledge does not apply in this matter.

You have to understand that the Bush administration is trying to state that executive privelige is an absolute right (i.e., we absolutely do not have the right to know) and that it applies to the entire Executive Branch and that the President presides over the Executive Branch and Congress has no control over what that Branch does which is simply not true.

 

[Edward]

If enough people in congress think that Bush has abused his authority and position, they can impeach him. If the public thinks that too many congressional Republicans are giving Bush a “free pass” then the public can vote Republicans out of office. The USA will not turn into a monarchy – though some people might think that we are moving close to it. A president, republican or democrat, can only go so far before congress and/or the public pulls back on his chain.

Indeed, America is not a monarchy instead, in the words of Patrick Henry, it is neither a monarchy, democracy or a republic (or for the matter a confederacy) instead it is nothing more than a consolidated empire based upon the principles of tyranny that are found in the Constitution. Ironically, we often look to the Bill of Rights which were included after the ratification of the Constitution as the embodiment of our rights but these were added as a result of the armed uprising of the people against those who drafted and ratified the Constitution. Those who supported the Constitution understood that if they did not give a little and add the Bill of Rights then a Revolution was going to take place.

When a Justice of the State Supreme Court, and former Deputy Governor of a Rhode Island leads over 1,000 armed men into Providence, Rhode Island to protest the Constitution, and when the people of that state defeat the Constitution and overwhelmingly reject its adoption and yet are ignored and are forced to accept it by a narrow vote of the people who supported it who again chose to ignore the people and to ratify it in a ratification convention you must acknowledge that the Constitution was never met to protect the people or that it is based on the principles of liberty. When those who were instrumental in the drafting of the Constitution say such things as the President should be appointed for life (Alexander Hamilton), and the role of "government is to protect the opulent from the majority" (James Madison) you will begin to realize that the premise of the government isn't control by the people and never was. Our government is not controlled by us. The fact that we can vote means little when those votes are diluted as they are. It is time that we take a long and serious look at the principles of the Constitution we find admirable (those forced into the Constitution by those who loved liberty) and those included at the Constitutional Convention by those who hated liberty (the rest). When we do so we can finally realize that there is a system of government that is better than that which we rebelled against in 1776 and which was re-instituted in 1789 by men like Patrick Henry who called the British form of government the best form of government and who praised it and called for appointing the King for life. He did all of this at the Constitutional Convention and he did so in secret because those who were there feared for their lives if the people learned what they were saying and that is why the records of the Constitutional Convention were not released for over a generation.

I now quote Patrick Henry who did not fear to speak out against the bastards like you who supported the Constitution in 1789. His courage in speaking the now famous words of "give me liberty of death" was repeated when he went against the tryants who supported the Constitution and these words indict tyrants of all ages including you. If you ask me to choose between a representative republic, a consolidated empire like ours, or a monarchy my choice will be between a representative republic or a monarchy for both are better than a government such as ours. I do not need to say more than this because others have already said it and I quote them below.

In the words of Patrick Henry, "I need not take much pains to show, that the principles of this system, are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a Monarchy, like England--a compact between Prince and people; with checks on the former, to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a Confederacy, like Holland--an association of a number of independent States, each of which retain its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a Confederacy to a consolidated Government."

Second, "The American spirit has fled from hence: It has gone to regions, where it has never been expected: It has gone to the people of France in search of a splendid Government--a strong energetic Government. Shall we imitate the example of those nations who have gone from a simple to a splendid Government. Are those nations more worthy of our imitation? What can make an adequate satisfaction to them for the loss they suffered in attaining such a Government for the loss of their liberty? If we admit this Consolidated Government it will be because we like a great splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, and a navy, and a number of things: When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, Sir, was then the primary object."

Third, "Such a Government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism: There will be no checks, no real balances, in this Government: What can avail your specious imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? But, Sir, we are not feared by foreigners: we do not make nations tremble: Would this, Sir, constitute happiness, or secure liberty? I trust, Sir, our political hemisphere will ever direct their operations to the security of those objects. Consider our situation, Sir: Go to the poor man, ask him what he does; he will inform you, that he enjoys the fruits of his labour, under his own fig-tree, with his wife and children around him, in peace and security. Go to every other member of the society, you will find the same tranquil ease and content; you will find no alarms or disturbances: Why then tell us of dangers to terrify us into an adoption of this new Government?"

In the words of Alexis de Tocqueville, "IT is in the examination of the exercise of thought in the United States that we clearly perceive how far the power of the majority surpasses all the powers with which we are acquainted in Europe. Thought is an invisible and subtle power that mocks all the efforts of tyranny. At the present time the most absolute monarchs in Europe cannot prevent certain opinions hostile to their authority from circulating in secret through their dominions and even in their courts. It is not so in America; as long as the majority is still undecided, discussion is carried on; but as soon as its decision is irrevocably pronounced, everyone is silent, and the friends as well as the opponents of the measure unite in assenting to its propriety. The reason for this is perfectly clear: no monarch is so absolute as to combine all the powers of society in his own hands and to conquer all opposition, as a majority is able to do, which has the right both of making and of executing the laws."

Second, "The authority of a king is physical and controls the actions of men without subduing their will. But the majority possesses a power that is physical and moral at the same time, which acts upon the will as much as upon the actions and represses not only all contest, but all controversy."

Second, "Monarchs had, so to speak, materialized oppression; the democratic republics of the present day have rendered it as entirely an affair of the mind as the will which it is intended to coerce. Under the absolute sway of one man the body was attacked in order to subdue the soul; but the soul escaped the blows which were directed against it and rose proudly superior. Such is not the course adopted by tyranny in democratic republics; there the body is left free, and the soul is enslaved. The master no longer says: 'You shall think as I do or you shall die'; but he says: 'You are free to think differently from me and to retain your life, your property, and all that you possess; but you are henceforth a stranger among your people. You may retain your civil rights, but they will be useless to you, for you will never be chosen by your fellow citizens if you solicit their votes; and they will affect to scorn you if you ask for their esteem. You will remain among men, but you will be deprived of the rights of mankind. Your fellow creatures will shun you like an impure being; and even those who believe in your innocence will abandon you, lest they should be shunned in their turn. Go in peace! I have given you your life, but it is an existence worse than death.' Absolute monarchies had dishonored despotism; let us beware lest democratic republics should reinstate it and render it less odious and degrading in the eyes of the many by making it still more onerous to the few."

 

[Edward]

I'd be curious if you can find any Federalist Paper, or documentation for Original Intent behind the constitution, that demonstrates Executive Priviledge.

Just to save him some time I would suggest that he narrow his search of the Federalist Papers to those written by Alexander Hamilton as he is the Founder who was very much in favor of the Executive Branch. That said, I would like to point out that it is not there because the Federalist Papers were written to convince people to buy into the shit that is the Constitution and much of what was written in the Federalist Papers was based on fabrications, outright lies and did not reflect the actual opinions of those who wrote them.

 

[Edward]

I've never had a problem with justices that stay within founding documents and British common law. I do have problems with international treaties, much less ruling from IC, etc.

But don't you like the Constitution? If you do then you must believe that the "Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;"

So your problem is with "international treaties" being the supreme law of the land? Maybe you should try reading the Constitution again if you are going to make a distinction between founding documents (which are not the supreme law of the land) other then the Constitution (which is the supreme law of the land) and international treaties (which are the supreme law of the land). You people sicken me!!! That is those who support the Constitution and yet have no knowledge of what is contained in it. Do not get me wrong, I do not think that treaties should be the supreme law of the land but at least I know enough to know that the Constitution (which is nothing but a disgusting piece of filth) states that they are.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Each Branch has seperate powers, Unless the Court rules against the President HE DOES have Executive Power in this matter. But then if you actually understood the Constitution you would understand that.

Also, until the Court of last resort rules against him AND then he refuses, he is NOT in contempt of anything.

Really?

That's interesting.

I'm surprised a rightie like you would defend Obama like that!

 

[DiamondDave]

Why the fuck do you bring up a thread that has not been touched in 4 years??

 

[The T]

Why the fuck do you bring up a thread that has not been touched in 4 years??

Boredom? No life?

 

[Douger]

Why the fuck do you bring up a thread that has not been touched in 4 years??

To remind the meatheads pretending to defend the constitution that they are all traitors for not doing it. Capiche ?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

1. Separation of powers and

2. He's doing an Obama

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why the fuck do you bring up a thread that has not been touched in 4 years??

To demonstrate the hypocrisy of the right.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Wa wa wa, Bush is not the potus anymore. If you want to charge him then go back and charge clinton. Idiots.

 

[The T]

Wa wa wa, Bush is not the potus anymore. If you want to charge him then go back and charge clinton. Idiots.

Indeed. Thing is? Many of us called Bush out on what he was doing...so the charges of hypocrisy by the left hold no water. They think they have dredged up something but still have fallen short...again.

 

[California Girl]

Why the fuck do you bring up a thread that has not been touched in 4 years??

Desperation.

 

[Ropey]

You know there's trouble in the factory when they are digging through the past years of business and complaining about it.

Time to reshuffle the deck?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why the fuck do you bring up a thread that has not been touched in 4 years??

Its suddenly relevant again.

 

[Charles_Main]

Why the fuck do you bring up a thread that has not been touched in 4 years??

To demonstrate the hypocrisy of the right.

Funny thing is, this thread Demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Right every Bit as much as the Left. Same people Wanting Bush Punished, Defend Obama.

lol

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why the fuck do you bring up a thread that has not been touched in 4 years??

To demonstrate the hypocrisy of the right.

Funny thing is, this thread Demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Right every Bit as much as the Left. Same people Wanting Bush Punished, Defend Obama.

lol

Really? How the FUCK is it hypocritical for a President to follow the precedents set by those before him? Its hypocritical to SET the precedent and then later say "Hey, it doesn't apply anymore!"

 

[PredFan]

Why the fuck do you bring up a thread that has not been touched in 4 years??

To demonstrate the hypocrisy of the right.

And in the meantime remind us of the hypocrisy of the left, who called for criminal prosecution of Bush but are perfectly fine with Obama doing it.