He's NOT, you know. He is ONE of THREE EQUAL branches of our government. You guys ought to read the document instead of using it to line birdcages.
2007-04-05
06:28:28
·
25 answers
·
asked by
Bush Invented the Google
6
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Harley: I've asked you to cite which part of the Constitution appointed Bush King of the United States. You have yet to show it to me.
2007-04-05
06:33:39 ·
update #1
Ah, kapute, my darling self-proclaimed Constitutional authority... you know nothing.
2007-04-05
06:40:15 ·
update #2
griffon: The Constitution does not grant powers to government. The document was designed to lay out all the ways in which the government's power over the people is LIMITED. It doesn't say the Speaker is NOT allowed to meet with foreign heads of state; ergo, he or she IS allowed. I didn't hear you whining when Gingrich did it.
2007-04-05
06:41:22 ·
update #3
The constitution starts out with "We the PEOPLE" Thats you and i. We rule this land! But some american's have no idea that when people fear it's govt. we have tyranny.
2007-04-05 06:33:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by jeb black 5
·
4⤊
4⤋
Maybe you ought to read the document. When it comes to foreign policy, waging war, and diplomacy, the Constitution DOES make the President more powerful than anyone else. The President is the Chief Executive, Chief Diplomat, and Commander in Chief. Congress' efforts to interfere with the President's decision making clearly overstep their Constitutional boundaries. For example: where in the Constitution does it grant the Speaker of the House the power to meet and negotiate with enemies of the United States? Where in your version of the Constitution does it say that?
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, ..." There are also countless Supreme Court decisions that have established the President as having the primary decision-making authority when it comes to the military, and especially during times of war.
2007-04-05 13:34:57
·
answer #2
·
answered by griffon1426 3
·
5⤊
2⤋
Obviously "Harley" has never bothered to read the "Patriot Act". It destroys half the constitutional rights, and "Patriot Act II" destroys the other half. Check it out; You are not allowed to store more than six weeks worth of food, they do not need a warrant to search your house, they no longer need reasonable cause to arrest you, if you are found with more than ten-thousand dollars in cash in your possession, it can be confiscated and you can be convicted of being a terrorist with no further proof, etc. etc. etc.
The constitution is for the PEOPLE. The bill of rights is for the GOVERNMENT. Read it yourself! The government does NOT have all the rights they so freely give themselves, and no one but God himself has the right to grant them the authority to do what they do, thereby making The Shrub, KING.
Apparently, there are some people replying to this board who don't actually attend political speeches, live. You would hear things that your beloved media carefully deletes, like when King Shrub said, "The constitution is nothing more than a god-damned piece of paper." 'NUFF SAID.
2007-04-05 13:42:30
·
answer #3
·
answered by Ken K 2
·
1⤊
3⤋
What version of Lib Rag are you reading that has you convinced that the Republicans think that the Bush is more powerful than anyone? It is the Liberals that believe that Bush is entirely responsible for the war - though the decision was approved by Congress.
2007-04-05 13:43:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by Terrie 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
Bush knows and uses the power of the Presidency unlike jimmy Carter who was clueless.
2007-04-07 21:29:03
·
answer #5
·
answered by edward m 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Besides asking the same question over and over, and as I sift through all of the spelling errors that you were so against yesterday, I ponder where your intellect has gone. You used to make some sense at least. I'll give you one more try. WHEN DID BUSH PROCLAIM HIMSELF KING. Or is this more criminal slander.
2007-04-05 13:38:28
·
answer #6
·
answered by mbush40 6
·
4⤊
1⤋
No, Harley, he is NOT wrong. There is a reason. Cheney and Rumsfeld worked for Nixon. They felt that the only reason Nixon was subject to the possibility of impeachment and had to resign was because he didn't claim enough executive powers for himself. They decided that if they ever got in power again, they would make sure that the president would not make the mistake Nixon made.
So from the moment Georgie got into power, Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld began to tutor him in grabbing more and more power under various ruses. It will be hard for Congress and the other parts of our government to undo the harm, but this Congress is trying.
To demonstrate how short-sighted these Republicans can be, it never occurred to them that future presidents, including Democrats they despise, would be able to grab the same amount of power. If that were to happen, it would make them SO unhappy. Cheney might cry.
These things are FAR beyond the ordinary power granted to or used by a president. If you don't believe me:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
2007-04-05 13:36:20
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
5⤋
I cannot respect anybody who'd say anything as petulently childish as "Bush thinks he's king" or similar nonsense.
Yes, the Executive Branch is the equal of the Legislative Branch. But it is not answerable to the Legislative branch for its internal workings. Nor is it subject to the supervision of the Legislative Branch.
You claim this Bush = king stuff, yet you have yet to offer any logic, reason or substance to support this claim. Perhaps logic, reason and substance are alien concepts for you?
2007-04-05 13:39:28
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
3⤋
You are brain dead.
You have made an accusation and I have asked you to state references to the constitutional clauses you imply that Bush has violated.
You don't like his policies so you just say he has made himself King...
That is easy to say but using your own ammunition against you, PROVE IT.
He isn't a king and hasn't tried to make himself a king.
Throw your baseless accusations in the garbage where you threw your brain a long time ago.
2007-04-05 13:38:34
·
answer #9
·
answered by cappi 3
·
5⤊
2⤋
These critters have never studied the Constitution--if they've even read it. Quite honestly,I tthink the only part some of them even know about is the Second Ammendment!.
And they've certainly never read the Federalist Papers!
2007-04-05 13:38:30
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
The democrats have found your mantra in using Bush as the scapegoat for everything. It's a boring discussion and 'you guys' must be dumber than rocks to have to keep asking the same question over and over and over and over and over again!
2007-04-05 13:36:41
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
2⤋