Why do Bush supporters have such contempt for the Constitution? Do they really prefer a monarchy?

Question

Most of them don't seem to care that we have suspended habeas corpus. I won't even elaborate on Bush's war. Its also interesting how people like Sara Taylor can say that she took an oath to Bush..( instead of supporting and defending the Constitution. That says it all.

If some of you did some research into the MCA of Oct 17 2006, you'd read that the president can designate anyone a person of interest with no access to the courts, or representation. You could just vanish.
In effect Bush HAS suspended habeas corpus protection. Also what is with these signing statements that negate the effect of laws passed by Congress. I have a problem with despots, not just Bush.

Jacob; We have to disagree here. In my read is how ANY person can be designated a person of interest by the president, - this thing is so broadly written. Yes it does suspend habeas corpus. Are we in WW II?

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
No matter if it's for Americans or foreigns.Restricting habeas in this manner is not Constitutional.

Answer 1

Of the less than 30% that will still admit to being bushies, few of them know what the constitution is or what it means. They don't know what a monarchy is, so you can't say they prefer one. They just want a big brother to protect them and believe everything will work out because it's all in His hands.

Here's a clue; Just listen to the speech of those who support Bush. Listen to their accents, grammar, malapropisms and mispronunciation. They're all ignorant hicks. They still think the world is 6000 years old and that the sun revolves around the Earth. Your talking about medieval morons. They can't spell habeas corpus, much less understand its value.

Answer 2

That is quite a stretch. The MCA of 2006 (Military Commissions Act) does not "in effect" suspend Habeas Corpus. Imagine if you will that you are talking about German soldiers in WWII. Did they have Habeas Corpus protection? Of course not. Terrorists are by definition enemy combatants not just simple criminals. An enemy combatant is someone engaged in war against a sovereign state but they are not complying with the rules of war. For instance they do not were clearly recognizable uniforms, or have distinctive marking on their vehicles. They wear civilian clothing and hide among and target civilians.

Acts such as these committed during WWII made the perpetrators subject to military tribunal. Such is the case with today's terrorists. To approach this as a law enforcement issue rather than a war issue is akin to bringing a knife to a gunfight.

These people must be handled at least the way prisoners of war are, in that they can be held without a trial until the cessation of hostilities however long that is.

The president has increased authority in times of war. The same will apply to his successors. The same applied to his predecessors. You don't have to like it. But it is necessary. Our constitution is not a suicide note. It may not be used to insure our destruction by providing combatants with access to the criminal justice system.

I, too, have a problem with despots. It is not what any American president is, has ever been or will ever be.

Word War II no, but a war nonetheless. Of course there is always the possiblity of abuse of authority but extraordinary enemies require extraordinary means of defense. If not the Commander-in-chief, then who best to wield such power? Some unelected judge? Some unelected general? I think the term limited president is the best choice. The next president will have full access to all records and information regarding this president's choices. Any abuse would be exposed at that time.

.

Answer 3

Habeas Corpus has not been suspended. I personally adore the constitution including the part about freedom of speech. I guess you missed that part. I agree with the President on some things, mildly disagree on others, and strongly disagree on still others. This makes me a rational thinking woman. With our last President it was the same. I happen to believe that we can disagree with the President without resorting to hate-filled dialog. You might want to try that sometime.

Answer 4

Some of us Bush supporters are not very enthusiastic about him either. But you have to offer something better than Al Gore and John Kerry. Currently, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards fall in that class, too. If they are your nominee I would still vote for Bush if he could run again. Why don't you get a life and quit running against Bush and be for something rather than against everything.

Answer 5

If the founding fathers had anticipated terrorism, they'd have written the constitution to say "we're going to hold the people who want us dead for as long as we possibly can."

Answer 6

Do you have any thoughts that are your own? Or does the liberal media control you completely.

Your question is typical of those who hate Bush, it lacks all basis in reality and contains no facts. Just a questions full of generalities and fantasies the liberals have about Bush being evil.

Answer 7

Wow, I must have missed a Coronation somewhere? When was Bush made king and the Constitution re-written?

Answer 8

Those willing to give up thier freedoms for security deserve neither.Franklin.

Answer 9

It was also suspended during the civil war, so what is your point? How about those liberals who are going after the 1st and 2nd amendment. I think that says it all.

Answer 10

"Most of them don't seem to care that we have suspended habeas corpus. "

Care to offer proof of this? A quote, link anything?


Waiting.....

Thought so.

Just another liberal with BDS.