Dude, your question is incredibly vague.
In what instant are you asking if he ignored the Constitution?
Which section?
Which clause?
Do you just parrot late night comedy?
Did somebody tell you that at Burger King?
2007-03-22 00:15:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by ? 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I believe President Bush along with many in Congress and the courts have too often ignored the Constitution. Each time they do this and are allowed to get away with it, the Constitution's power to protect our freedom is diminished.
For example, the NSA surveillance program authorized by President Bush and judged to be unconstitutional in the courts last year, ignores the basic principle enshrined in the Constitution of the separation of powers between the 3 branches of government. The executive branch created the law (they should only be enforcing laws) and in fact feels they aren't subject to the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act, and they don't feel the need to get a warrant, which cuts out the Judicial branch. The "checks and balances" provided for in our Constitution are there to prevent one branch from becoming too powerful and trampling on individual rights. King Bush has done this far too often and has seriously damaged our freedom.
2007-03-23 03:14:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by Bryan Kingsford 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
President Bush does not ignore the Constitution of the United States of America. He interperates the Constitution like the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and I believe that if George Washington was alive today, he would be very proud of George W. Bush for standing up to the Constitution of the United States of America and Washington would not be proud of what the Democratic Party has done to destroy the foundations the United States of America was founded on.
2007-03-21 13:25:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by Mr. Knowledgeable VI 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
A presidential signing assertion being issued would not recommend that the president would not intend to stay with the regulation this is surpassed or enforce that regulation. The assertion would properly be basically a remark on the invoice, a clarification or a word that he has questions related to the constitutionality of the invoice. in case you prefer to play that sport, invoice Clinton issued much extra signing statements than Bush did. Presidential signing statements have no longer something to do with government orders being issued in the full absence of congressional oversight or approval this is what Obama is doing.
2016-12-15 05:50:17
·
answer #4
·
answered by fechter 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
May I ask when, where and the context of when he supposibly said the constitution was a "old piece of paper"
As far as I know how has not broke the laws clearly laid out before us in the constitution. If he did, please, how and when?
Wow, I am surprised I got a thumb down. I am not saying anything Pro or Against either of the parties. I just simply want to know the sources. Its like someone claiming that you stole something and then that person refusing to testify/provide evidence in a court of law. No offense is intended, I just simply want to know the accusations and speech you are referring to.
2007-03-21 13:08:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by GrandFireLord 3
·
3⤊
1⤋
He has said more than once that the "Constitution is just a piece of paper". What does that tell you? Bush has a real problem with authority UNLESS it is the authority he has bestowed upon himself. Quite all right. He is a Lame Duck with 3 six-month terms, and 10 days to go. Perhaps it is time for all of our senators and congressmen and women to read all of the bills and legislation this man has caused to be put through instead of having hearings day after day about matters that they believe US population is interested in. The greater majority of them admitted that they hadn't even read the Patriot Act years ago. So they just let it slide through, along with other bills attached to the entire packet. Pelosi should mandate at least two weeks so that these fools can take the time to read, including a re-read of the Constitution. (And please, Harvard grad or not,. Bush leaves a lot to be desired in the brains department. Early on, he admitted that he would have the "best" working in his cabinet. NOT because he didn't know what he was doing, but because he did. He knows he's lacking. Harvard grad indeed.
Right
Affirmative action - personified!.
2007-03-21 13:04:05
·
answer #6
·
answered by rare2findd 6
·
1⤊
5⤋
Bush has not ignored nothing, especially the Constitution. Talk about ignore the Constitution, Clinton's can not even spell it, guess that why they think it is for every one else except them.
2007-03-21 13:05:44
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
4⤋
Unlike you, he has a Masters Degree and I think he knows more about it than you ever will. You're just spouting the same things your liberal buddies have been telling you to.
2007-03-21 14:33:36
·
answer #8
·
answered by Kevin A 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfield and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States.
2007-03-21 13:01:44
·
answer #9
·
answered by Surfer Dude 2
·
3⤊
7⤋
Hey, dude. You need to tell us what you're talking about. I don't know of any instances where this has been the case. You're not trying to whine about the attorneys general firings, are you? That at least has been the latest liberal attack. Why not spend your time getting your dem representatives to do something useful in congress ....
2007-03-21 13:03:18
·
answer #10
·
answered by Apachecat 3
·
5⤊
3⤋