Entries Tagged as 'Constitution'

The Presidency is actually a Dictatorship

I just finished reading the press release from Senator Whitehouse on his findings of the legal opinions issued by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) regarding the “Protect America Act.”

In a nutshell, Bush has set himself up to be the supreme Dictator. He makes the rules, which he can change at any time to suit his needs. The three branches of Government all seem to have been replaced by one person, the President. Or is it Dictator now?

From Senator Whitehouse’s press release: To give you an example of what I read, I have gotten three legal propositions from these OLC opinions declassified. Here they are, as accurately as my note taking could reproduce them from the classified documents. Listen for yourself. I will read all three, and then discuss each one.

1. “An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.”

2. “The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II.”

3. “The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.”

Let’s start with number one. Bear in mind that the so-called Protect America Act that was stampeded through this great body in August provides no statutory protections for Americans traveling abroad from government wiretapping. None if you’re a businesswoman traveling on business overseas, none if you’re a father taking the kids to the Caribbean, none if you’re visiting uncles or aunts in Italy or Ireland, none even if you’re a soldier in the uniform of the United States posted overseas. The Bush Administration provided in that hastily-passed law no statutory restrictions on their ability to wiretap you at will, to tap your cell phone, your e-mail, whatever. The only restriction is an executive order called 12333, which limits executive branch surveillance to Americans who the Attorney General determines to be agents of a foreign power. That’s what the executive order says.

But what does this administration say about executive orders? An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it. “Whenever (the President) wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order, he may do so because the executive order cannot limit a President.” And he doesn’t have to change the executive order, or give notice that he’s violating it, because by depart(ing) from the executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it. So unless Congress acts, here is what legally prevents this President from wiretapping Americans traveling abroad at will: nothing.

Nothing. That was among the most egregious flaws in the bill passed during the August stampede they orchestrated by the Bush Administration and this OLC opinion shows why we need to correct it.

Here’s number two. The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II. Yes, that’s right. The President, according to the George W. Bush OLC, has Article II power to determine what the scope of his Article II powers are. Never mind a little decision called Marbury v. Madison, written by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803, establishing the proposition that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Does this administration agree that it is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the President’s authority is under Article II? No, it is the President, according to this OLC, who decides the legal limits of his own Article II power.

The question is whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II, is to be determined by the President’s minions, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II. It really makes you wonder, who are these people? They have got to be smart people to get there. How can people who are so smart be so misguided?

And then, it gets worse. Remember point three? The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations. Let that sink in a minute. The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.

Read More

Sphere: Related Content

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Bookmark this article!

DiggDel.icio.usRedditStumbleUponFurlma.gnoliaNewsvinePropellerFark

BumpZeeSpurlSlashDotGoogleYahooBlogLinesWindows LiveTechnorati

Merry Christmas Mr. Bush. It’s the Constitution

If President Bush had been nice this year, maybe Santa would have left some Reindeer poo in his stocking. But poor George has been naughty, so Santa has decided to give him something he really really needs. A copy of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Maybe this gift will remind George of the promise he made, to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Feel like Santa this year and want to give George a copy of the Constitution too?

Click Here, it won’t cost you a penny!

Sphere: Related Content

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Bookmark this article!

DiggDel.icio.usRedditStumbleUponFurlma.gnoliaNewsvinePropellerFark

BumpZeeSpurlSlashDotGoogleYahooBlogLinesWindows LiveTechnorati

Bush shredding the Constitution

Two months after insisting that they would roll back broad eavesdropping powers won by the Bush administration, Democrats in Congress appear ready to make concessions that could extend some crucial powers given to the National Security Agency.

Administration officials say they are confident they will win approval of the broadened authority that they secured temporarily in August as Congress rushed toward recess. Some Democratic officials concede that they may not come up with enough votes to stop approval.

Although willing to oppose the White House on the Iraq war, they remain nervous that they will be called soft on terrorism if they insist on strict curbs on gathering intelligence.

A Democratic bill to be proposed on Tuesday in the House would maintain for several years the type of broad, blanket authority for N.S.A. eavesdropping that the administration secured in August for six months.

Read More

Remember the Constitution of the United States, the supreme law? Well say goodbye to it, because everyday for the past seven years it has been getting ripped to shreds. The Constitution of the United States of America lies bleeding on the floor.

Thanks to Bush, Cheney, and their stooge Abu they have managed to totally re-write Fourth Amendment, and nobody really seems to give a shit!

I for one am sick and tired of hearing the Democrats in Congress whine and moan that “they can’t get enough votes to stop approval” for bills that compromise the Constitution!

How about Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution regarding Impeachment?
The article states:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Is it only we the sheeple that seem to think that President Bush and Vice President Cheney are guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors?

And what about Congress and the Senate, are they not guilty of dereliction of duty by letting Bush, Cheney, and former AG Gonzales get away with destroying the Constitution for their own political gain and or enjoyment?

For the love of God, President Clinton got impeached because of a blow job! Are the travesties Bush and Cheney are committing on the laws of this land not far more serious?

If the members of Congress don’t, not can’t, but don”t stop the impending permanent shredding of the Fourth Amendment, it will be the end of what we once called, “the home of the free.”

Photobucket
This was once the law of the land. Is it gone forever?

Sphere: Related Content

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

Bookmark this article!

DiggDel.icio.usRedditStumbleUponFurlma.gnoliaNewsvinePropellerFark

BumpZeeSpurlSlashDotGoogleYahooBlogLinesWindows LiveTechnorati

Judge Rules Provisions in Patriot Act to Be Illegal

A federal judge in Oregon ruled Wednesday that crucial parts of the USA Patriot Act were not constitutional because they allowed federal surveillance and searches of Americans without demonstrating probable cause.

“For over 200 years, this nation has adhered to the rule of law , with unparalleled success,” Judge Aiken’s opinion said in finding violations of the Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure. “A shift to a nation based on extraconstitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill advised.”

The Constitution of the United States of America; IT LIVES! Don’t tell Bush though, his meddling has hurt the rules of this country long enough!

Read More

Sphere: Related Content

Technorati Tags: , ,

Bookmark this article!

DiggDel.icio.usRedditStumbleUponFurlma.gnoliaNewsvinePropellerFark

BumpZeeSpurlSlashDotGoogleYahooBlogLinesWindows LiveTechnorati

Goodbye Constitution, Hello Police State

I’m not a lawyer, nor do I profess to be one in the know about all things legal. But this scared the living bajeepers out of me when I heard about it.

It’s another of Bush’s Executive Orders just released by the Office of the Press Secretary. It’s titled: Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq.

To list a few of the points of this executive order:

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:

Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Now I’m just a hippy-type trying to make sense of all this B.S., but what I read from this is that if you protest the war in Iraq, or don’t support it, the government can legally “block” your property. In other words, they can put a lien on it so you can’t “transfer, export, or otherwise deal with it.”
If anybody would like to shed some light on this “Executive Order”, I’m all ears. In the mean time I’ll be over here in the corner, in the fetal position wondering what happened to my (our) country!

Source: White House

Sphere: Related Content

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

Bookmark this article!

DiggDel.icio.usRedditStumbleUponFurlma.gnoliaNewsvinePropellerFark

BumpZeeSpurlSlashDotGoogleYahooBlogLinesWindows LiveTechnorati