how come NEOKON FASCIST Bush hates the Constitution so much ?

Question

Constitution : you NEED a warrant for a phone-tap and search

Bush : you DO NOT NEED a warrant for a phone-tap and search


why does NEOKON Bush hate Amerika and the Constitution so much ?

Answer 1

Actually the constitution doesn't mention needing warrants for phone taps. And it mentions protection against unreasonable searches, perhaps he feels his searches are reasonable.

And to answer your question, I don't believe he hates the constitution.

Answer 2

Two things get my blood boiling about this wiretapping nonsense. I will start with the most annoying one first. I was listening to NPR today when I heard a little clip from Secretary of State Rice defending the Administration. I don’t have a link or a direct quote but essentially her argument was that the law governing these wiretaps was enacted in the 1970s and could therefore not be considered adequate to fight today’s terrorism. What a bunch of bunk is that!? Basically this Administration is creating an executive policy that says if it (not Congress, not the Judiciary, ah but we will get to that in a minute) determines a law to to be obsolete or not going far enough to serve the needs of the Administration, it is to be ignored and considered null and void. Such logic is ridiculous and clearly unconstitutional. It also really scares the crap out of me and makes me wonder what else this group of wing nuts has determined to be obsolete and therefore unncessary to enforce.

The second point I have touched on, the unconstitutionality of the actions of the President. I see this as an oddly bifurcated problem. I think we can find ourselves in a situation that had Bush gone to a court his actions in wiretapping citizens may have been upheld. That is side one of the problem because we cannot stand for the wiretapping of citizens of this country without due process. The second part of the problem is the act may be legal what is illegal is the way Bush approached it. The determination made by the White House was made in clear violation of the Constitution and its demand for the separation of powers. The executive branch is charged with executing the law. The Constitution leaves the President with no judicial review and no legislative perogative to rewrite or modify on the fly laws unless such power has been limitedly granted to the President by act of Congress. The law in question leaves the President with no discretion to make judgment calls on the fly. Bush overstepped his constitutional limits when his Administration made a determination that the law as written was inadequate (this would be judicial review) and he could in fact act contrary to the law by moving forward with wiretap without judicial approval or oversight (this is a legislative modification).

What makes this situation far more frightening than the fact that we may all be under surveillance is what we are seeing happing to Congress and the Judiciary. Most presidential historians will tell you that the power of the presidency is largely determined by the man in the office. The framers were vague enough in the enumeration of powers to the Executive that each president has the opportunity to redefine the presidency. Since day one Bush has set his sites on a very strong presidency and has done so via the usurpation of power from the other two branches. Congress usually wakes up to start to restore its power and the judiciary eventually begins to check the power of the president (Rehnquist unfortunately had been neutering Congress since he took the bench leaving the situation ripe for such a president like Bush to come along and fill the vacuum). If we do not start checking Bush’s powers now the future for civil rights looks more grim than ever before. We need to prod Congress along and tell them to start taking back their power; this deference to Bush is nonsense and dangerous

Answer 3

In case you are wondering what the actual LAW on this is:

US CODE TITLE 50 :CHAPTER 36 :SUBCHAPTER I :§ 1802
“Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.”

hmmm… no declaration of war by Congress (only a resolution, and that is not the same thing) and it’s been almost 4 years… wow, only 1400+ days over the limit.

"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"

Warrants are required for electronic surveilence. For court judgment regarding this, see link 2:

Answer 4

why do you have a problem with keeping america safe . On this particular situation nobody should give a dam and be thankfull . They are tapping the phones of suspected terrorist and people that deserve it , they are not tapping your phone , just bad people . also if you truly think every phone that has been tapped in the past had a warrant you are truly ignorant

Answer 5

If you read the Constitution (actually the 4th Amendment) it clearly states that you are protected from "unreasonable" search and siezures. If you are receiving phone calls from terrorists, it is not "unreasonable" to listen in.

For those of you too lazy to click the link and read it for yourself:
"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"

Answer 6

in all probability. There are Muslims there. Bush and co. make an mind-blowing form of money off of sending our troops to their dying. you comprehend the comprehensive international ( different than israel and probably Britain) is against us. if your an american traveling in another country you continuously would desire to observe over your shoulder. Its through fact the movements of our government have made the international safer. LOL Indonesia is sending hundreds to help Lebanon. Iran is mobilizing.. yet to hearken to the republican sheep right here issues are turning out to be greater advantageous! LOL sounds to me like issues are escalating. sounds like a solid time to invade yet another u . s . illegally. pass bush pass!!

Answer 7

The Constitution is coming between DUH'bya and his greedy friends making money, I guess millions and millions of dollars are not enough.

Answer 8

Bush's policy is to make everyone a debtor.
His base includes the have's and the have more's.
By his own admission, he does not care for the impoverished.

Answer 9

FISA court said the warrant was unnecessary. Congress was briefed. Any other stupid questions? Oh wait...I'm sure there will be.

Answer 10

cuz the USA is a dictatorship now under the control of Cheney