What is your philosophy regarding the U.S. Constitution?

SmartCat said:

My philosophy regarding the U.S. Constitution is that it is an often ambiguously written guideline on how a representative democracy is to be organized. It is not the Absolute Truth. There are parts I would like to change. Nevertheless, as long as the American people are as polarized as they are I think we should delay changes, especially major changes.

.

Click to expand...

Should is irrelevant. So long as we are not in agreement it can not be changed, by design. A very good thing this is too.

I believe it was a flawed document, that has been fixed. I believe it is the law of the land, and ought to be. I like the idea of having rights, having things that the state cannot do to me, rights I can invoke in court that judges must honor.

I even like the idea of "unlimited rights" which to me means, rights that aren't infringed upon. I do not agree with our President or Scalia that they can be. People think that its illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater, its not. Causing a panic, causing harm is illegal; if you yelled it and no one so much as batted an eyelash, no crime has occurred. There are laws against causing harm, for good reason. They are in no way a limitation to the 1st Amendment than the laws against murder are a limitation of the 2nd.

I don't believe warrantless violations of the people's 4th Amendment rights are "a reasonable limitation, to balance liberty and security."

I also take alot of issue with people's interpretations of the Supremacy and the General Welfare clauses.

SmartCat said:

Those who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence and the United States were wealthy men. Most of them owned slaves. These facts certainly influenced their political thinking.

I would be interested in knowing how much education most of them had. I would not be surprised to learn that the vast majority lacked university educations.

I am sure that most knew more about ancient history and classical literature than most American politicians do today. At the same time they knew nothing about what great thinkers since their time have written. Back then the United States had about three million inhabitants, many of whom were slaves. Since then the U.S, population has grown geographically. The population has grown to 318.9.

The so called "Founding Fathers" were products of their time and class. We should study their writings with respect. We should not assume that their observations and judgment are authoritative for our time.

Click to expand...

Madison graduated from Princeton. Both John Adams and John Quincy Adams have bachelor and master degrees from Harvard. Jefferson graduated from William and Mary. Monroe attended William and Mary for over a year before dropping out and joining the revolution. Jefferson had 6,500 books in his library which he sold to the government when the British burned the library-his collection started the Library of Congress, basically. They seem like smart people. And tended to study philosophy and law as well as other subjects.
Monroe tried to repatriate slaves to Africa, creating Liberia. The capital is Monrovia. The Adams did not own slaves. Between the non-slave owner northerners and the Virginians they were well suited to trying to devise a system that was democratic yet respected the rights of the opposition.
We may not like things like slaves being 3/5th of a person but that was a reasonable compromise between non-slave states and the slave states that wanted to count slaves as full citizens when determining representation in the population based House while denying them the right to vote. The alternative would have been to turn over all control to the South or forming 2 separate countries.

Yeah, I understand that if there were 10 main founders back then there should be 1,000 or more equal or better people today but I don't see any currently running for President or currently likely to head up a Constitutional committee. The issues dividing the country were much stronger then. Who today could command respect between opposing views.

Eric7216 said:

Madison graduated from Princeton. Both John Adams and John Quincy Adams have bachelor and master degrees from Harvard. Jefferson graduated from William and Mary. Monroe attended William and Mary for over a year before dropping out and joining the revolution. Jefferson had 6,500 books in his library which he sold to the government when the British burned the library-his collection started the Library of Congress, basically. They seem like smart people. And tended to study philosophy and law as well as other subjects.
Monroe tried to repatriate slaves to Africa, creating Liberia. The capital is Monrovia. The Adams did not own slaves. Between the non-slave owner northerners and the Virginians they were well suited to trying to devise a system that was democratic yet respected the rights of the opposition.
We may not like things like slaves being 3/5th of a person but that was a reasonable compromise between non-slave states and the slave states that wanted to count slaves as full citizens when determining representation in the population based House while denying them the right to vote. The alternative would have been to turn over all control to the South or forming 2 separate countries.

Yeah, I understand that if there were 10 main founders back then there should be 1,000 or more equal or better people today but I don't see any currently running for President or currently likely to head up a Constitutional committee. The issues dividing the country were much stronger then. Who today could command respect between opposing views.

Click to expand...

We have a tendency to idealize the so called "founding fathers." This youtube website has several attack adds that were really used by each side in the presidential election of 1800.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Drl8fpWTKo

Chomsky said:

Well, judges have had various degrees of activism, and we haven't fallen apart yet.

But what makes you believe there will be left appointed judges? That's President dependent.

Click to expand...

Even if the judges are appointed by the right it could all go downhill very quickly, since Democrats and Republicans have recently become ideologically aligned the court has seen a major split among most cases where dems and GOP have opposing views are all ending up 5-4. luckily we have a justice that is moderate, if it tilts one way or the other it will just be a race to get whatever case to the SCOTUS and the legislative and executive branches can essentially be bypassed.

Cally said:

If I could add a single Amendment to the constitution, it would be the complete and irrevocable abolition of Corporate Personhood.

Click to expand...

That would be silly. The NYT can publish pretty much whatever it wants because of the first amendment applies to them as a corporation, NYT v US (1971), however that would not longer apply if you took away thier "corporate personhood". As bad as some of the news media has become it seems unconscionable to want to get rid off the media industry all together.

SmartCat said:

We have a tendency to idealize the so called "founding fathers." This youtube website has several attack adds that were really used by each side in the presidential election of 1800.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Drl8fpWTKo

Click to expand...

Well, in my mind, you simply proved my point. And I wrote as much, that the issues dividing the country 220 years ago were worse than now. And yet these people, who hated each other, agreed sufficiently to produce the Constitution and get 9 of the 13 colonies to ratify it. I have seen nothing similar today-most legislation is passed by one party with no or minimal support by the opposing party. Yet you think that the founding fathers should not be idealized when they were able, with all that rancor and heated disagreements, to produce a bipartisan agreement.
Name 5 or 10 people today that would be universally trusted enough to work together to produce a new Constitution. Would Texas ratify anything that New York or California ratified?

Crovax said:

That would be silly. The NYT can publish pretty much whatever it wants because of the first amendment applies to them as a corporation, NYT v US (1971), however that would not longer apply if you took away thier "corporate personhood". As bad as some of the news media has become it seems unconscionable to want to get rid off the media industry all together.

Click to expand...

youve been watching too much fox news, most news sites don't go out of their way make up lies and conspiracies, especially tiny stories like this one. I know thats considered normal for you, but if other news sources acted like that theyve wouldve gone out of business a long time ago, fox news fans seem to enjoy the lies for some reason

the fact that 1970's Mississippi banned a show for having an integrated cast isn't hard to beleive at all. republicans are still trying to ban PBS, its just that in 2016 they're more upset about homosexuality than race.

You are the one claiming theres a liberal conspiracy to trick people into thinking this story is true. Maybe you think segregation was a myth as well, im sure fox news says that all the time and you beleive it.

dimensionallava said:

youve been watching too much fox news, most news sites don't go out of their way make up lies and conspiracies, especially tiny stories like this one. I know thats considered normal for you, but if other news sources acted like that theyve wouldve gone out of business a long time ago, fox news fans seem to enjoy the lies for some reason

the fact that 1970's Mississippi banned a show for having an integrated cast isn't hard to beleive at all. republicans are still trying to ban PBS, its just that in 2016 they're more upset about homosexuality than race.

You are the one claiming theres a liberal conspiracy to trick people into thinking this story is true. Maybe you think segregation was a myth as well, im sure fox news says that all the time and you beleive it.

Click to expand...

I think you posted this in the wrong thread

Crovax said:

I think you posted this in the wrong thread

Click to expand...

lol sorry had two windows open.

Eric7216 said:

Well, in my mind, you simply proved my point. And I wrote as much, that the issues dividing the country 220 years ago were worse than now. And yet these people, who hated each other, agreed sufficiently to produce the Constitution and get 9 of the 13 colonies to ratify it. I have seen nothing similar today-most legislation is passed by one party with no or minimal support by the opposing party. Yet you think that the founding fathers should not be idealized when they were able, with all that rancor and heated disagreements, to produce a bipartisan agreement.
Name 5 or 10 people today that would be universally trusted enough to work together to produce a new Constitution. Would Texas ratify anything that New York or California ratified?

Click to expand...

Because of the polarization in the United States I think it would be unwise to call a Second Constitutional Convention now. The last time I would have felt comfortable with a Second Constitutional Convention would have been the New Deal. Before we have such a convention, I think there should be a broad consensus about the kind of government we should have.

SmartCat said:

This the preamble of the Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

What does "promote the general Welfare" mean? I see it as authorizing domestic spending. Reactionaries think differently.

The Fourth Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Has been used to legalize abortion. Sorry, I do not see any authorization of abortion here.

This is the Eighth Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

What are "excessive bail," "excessive fines," and "cruel and unusual punishments?"

This is the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The meaning here, while reasonably clear, would invalidate most of the economic, environmental, and civil rights legislation passed during the twentieth century. Because this legislation is popular, overturning it would lead to a Constitutional crisis.

Click to expand...

the general welfare, are the powers of congress.

welfare the social structure of HANDOUTS of america today, was called relief when it began in the 1930's and ended during WWII it was brought back in the early 1960's and remained welfare.

SmartCat said:

This the preamble of the Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

What does "promote the general Welfare" mean? I see it as authorizing domestic spending. Reactionaries think differently.

The Fourth Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Has been used to legalize abortion. Sorry, I do not see any authorization of abortion here.

This is the Eighth Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

What are "excessive bail," "excessive fines," and "cruel and unusual punishments?"

This is the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The meaning here, while reasonably clear, would invalidate most of the economic, environmental, and civil rights legislation passed during the twentieth century. Because this legislation is popular, overturning it would lead to a Constitutional crisis.

Click to expand...

the general welfare, are the powers of congress.

welfare the social structure of HANDOUTS of america today, was called "relief" when it began in the 1930's and ended during WWII it was brought back in the early 1960's and remained welfare.



“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

“[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” – James Madison, Federalist 14

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” – James Madison, Federalist 45

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” – James Madison, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed” – Thomas Jefferson, 1791

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798


“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

ernst barkmann said:

the general welfare, are the powers of congress.

welfare the social structure of HANDOUTS of america today, was called relief when it began in the 1930's and ended during WWII it was brought back in the early 1960's and remained welfare.

Click to expand...

The general welfare clause can refer to all domestic spending programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment compensation, public education, and so on. The general welfare clause did not have that meaning when the Constitution was written. It does have that meaning now. The programs I listed have enormous popular support. Efforts to Constitutionally eliminate them would result in a Constitutional crises, and probably a new Constitution, or at least a few quickly written amendments.

Those who wish to roll back the welfare state should heed what President Eisenhower wrote in a letter to his brother Milton:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1954 letter to his brother Edgar - Democratic Underground

SmartCat said:

The general welfare clause can refer to all domestic spending programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment compensation, public education, and so on. The general welfare clause did not have that meaning when the Constitution was written. It does have that meaning now. The programs I listed have enormous popular support. Efforts to Constitutionally eliminate them would result in a Constitutional crises, and probably a new Constitution, or at least a few quickly written amendments.

Those who wish to roll back the welfare state should heed what President Eisenhower wrote in a letter to his brother Milton:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1954 letter to his brother Edgar - Democratic Underground

Click to expand...

the constitution delagates 18 powers to congress, and for those 18 it granted them the power to tax and paid for the common defense and the general welfare, those powers of congress are the general welfare and powers concerning the military.


general welfare

common defense


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

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

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

SmartCat said:

The general welfare clause can refer to all domestic spending programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment compensation, public education, and so on. The general welfare clause did not have that meaning when the Constitution was written. It does have that meaning now. The programs I listed have enormous popular support. Efforts to Constitutionally eliminate them would result in a Constitutional crises, and probably a new Constitution, or at least a few quickly written amendments.

Those who wish to roll back the welfare state should heed what President Eisenhower wrote in a letter to his brother Milton:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1954 letter to his brother Edgar - Democratic Underground

Click to expand...

then the u.s. no longer has the funds to pay for those social services it will end....and its coming

ernst barkmann said:

then the u.s. no longer has the funds to pay for those social services it will end....and its coming

Click to expand...

The productivity of the U.S. economy is expanding, even as average wages are not. The voters will insist on higher taxes for the rich before parting with their favorite entitlements.

SmartCat said:

The productivity of the U.S. economy is expanding, even as average wages are not. The voters will insist on higher taxes for the rich before parting with their favorite entitlements.

Click to expand...

social services increase every year they do not go down, the u.s. will one day not have the money to pay for them.

ernst barkmann said:

the constitution delagates 18 powers to congress, and for those 18 it granted them the power to tax and paid for the common defense and the general welfare, those powers of congress are the general welfare and powers concerning the military.


general welfare

common defense


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

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

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I have read the Constitution myself, quite a few times in fact. It has lasted as long as it has because interpretations of it have flexed sufficiently to allow an expanding public sector of the economy.

SmartCat said:

Thanks. I have read the Constitution myself, quite a few times in fact. It has lasted as long as it has because interpretations of it have flexed sufficiently to allow an expanding public sector of the economy.

Click to expand...

you missed this - “This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

SmartCat said:

Factcheck Posted on December 12, 2007

Q: Did President Bush call the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper"?
A: Extremely unlikely. The Web site that reported those words has a history of quoting phony sources and retracting bogus stories.

FULL QUESTION
Is it true that President Bush called the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper?" He has never denied it, and it appears that there were several witnesses.

FULL ANSWER
The report that Bush "screamed" those words at Republican congressional leaders in November 2005 is unsubstantiated, to put it charitably.

We judge that the odds that the report is accurate hover near zero. It comes from Capitol Hill Blue, a Web site that has a history of relying on phony sources, retracting stories and apologizing to its readers.

Update, Feb. 21, 2011: The author of the Capitol Hill Blue story has now withdrawn it. Doug Thompson messaged us to say:
Doug Thompson: This is to let you know that the piece on Bush and the Constitution has been changed and reads:

"This article was based on sources that we thought, at the time, were reliable. We have since discovered reasons to doubt their veracity. For that reason, this article has been removed from our database."

I no longer stand behind that article or its conclusions and have said so in answers to several recent queries. In addition, I have asked that it be removed from a documentary film.
Don’t get spun by Internet rumors.

Click to expand...

You're missing the point - that the Constitution kept a leash on him. He did on multiple occasions insult the Constitution:

Bush - Constitution 'Just A Goddamned Piece Of Paper'

George W. Bush Vs. The Constitution - CBS News

George W. Bush's presidency is another era of overreaction at the expense of constitutional rights, but the prospects for a quick correction are not auspicious. Nothing has helped end earlier bouts of repression so much as the fact that the wars themselves came to a close, and nothing has so exposed our liberties to indefinite jeopardy as the conception of a "war on terrorism" with no end.

The president claims an inherent power to imprison American citizens whom he has determined to be this country's enemies without obtaining a warrant, letting them hear the charges against them, or following other safeguards against wrongful punishment guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Under his administration, the government has engaged in inhumane treatment of prisoners that amounts to torture — and when Congress passed legislation to ban such treatment, he declared he would simply interpret the law his own way. Although the Constitution says treaties are the "supreme law of the land," the president has abrogated them on his own. And, we now know, he ordered a secret program of electronic surveillance of Americans without court warrants.

Click to expand...

George W. Bush’s Impeachable Offenses: Newsroom: The Independent Institute

George W. Bush is following in the footsteps of his predecessors, but may have left more tracks. For starters, invading another country on false pretenses is grounds for impeachment. Also, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution essentially says that the people have the right to be secure against unreasonable government searches and seizures and that no search warrants shall be issued without probable cause that a crime has been committed. And the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires that warrants for national security wiretaps be authorized by the secret FISA court. The law says that it is a crime for government officials to conduct electronic surveillance outside the exclusive purviews of that law or the criminal wiretap statute. President Bush’s authorization of the monitoring of Americans’ e-mails and phone calls by the National Security Agency (NSA) without even the minimal protection of FISA court warrants is clearly unconstitutional and illegal. Executive searches without judicial review violate the unique checks and balances that the nation’s founders created in the U.S. government and are a considerable threat to American liberty. Furthermore, surveillance of Americans by the NSA, an intelligence service rather than a law enforcement agency, is a regression to the practices of the Vietnam-era, when intelligence agencies were misused to spy on anti-war protesters—another impeachable violation of peoples’ constitutional rights by LBJ and Nixon.

Click to expand...

It's common sense this tyrant violated the Constitution.

Bush administration vs. the U.S. Constitution - SourceWatch

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/opinion/31bamford.html

Abbazorkzog said:

You're missing the point - that the Constitution kept a leash on him. He did on multiple occasions insult the Constitution:

Bush - Constitution 'Just A Goddamned Piece Of Paper'

George W. Bush Vs. The Constitution - CBS News



George W. Bush’s Impeachable Offenses: Newsroom: The Independent Institute



It's common sense this tyrant violated the Constitution.

Bush administration vs. the U.S. Constitution - SourceWatch

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/opinion/31bamford.html

Click to expand...

Democrats think Bush II violated the Constitution. Republicans think Obama violated the Constitution. A point I have made is that the Constitution is vaguely worded and flexible. Those who say that an action by an elected official is unconstitutional are saying little more than, "I don't like it."

I'm a non-originalist

SmartCat said:

Democrats think Bush II violated the Constitution. Republicans think Obama violated the Constitution. A point I have made is that the Constitution is vaguely worded and flexible. Those who say that an action by an elected official is unconstitutional are saying little more than, "I don't like it."

Click to expand...

It's pretty obvious that when you enact an executive order that allows the detainment of American Citizens without trial or jury or due process that is very unconstitutional.

SmartCat said:

My philosophy regarding the U.S. Constitution is that it is an often ambiguously written guideline on how a representative democracy is to be organized.....

Click to expand...

Seriously no reason to read any further. Why can't libs just be honest and say they would like to abolish the US Constitution? Instead, they do this silly Kabuki dance claiming the "ambiguity" of the Constitution. It is silly in the extreme.