What Constitutional law has the Bush Administration broken?

Question

I have been seeing many questions stating that Bush has broken Constitutional law and needs to be impeached. Their have been many court battles over certain things, but why does the Bush Administration keep winning these arguments.

First of all, are you all constitutional scholars? If you are, can you please explain to me what specific passage in the constitution he broke, how he broke it, and what it really means.

Secondly, the supreme court has broken the constitution many times. Can someone please send me the passage in the United States Constitution where the word abortion is permitted? I can't remember seeing that one when I read the constitution.

Sean D - please show me the passage in the constitution that Bush violated.

Truth teller - if you are not a constitutional schloar and don't know the Constitution, how can you ask questions about it? Obviously you are stating opinion in your questions and not fact.

Slykitty - The constitution is a contract very similar to what you signed with Verizon or your cell phone carrier. It is not a living or breathing document that can be changed nilly willy. If a majority of people want to change something, there is a passage that allows things to be revised legally.

So basically in the Roe vs. Wade decision, the Supreme Court violated the modification clause. This is a document that they are supposed to protect, not modify by their decisions.

Edmund:

Well there is nothing about a right to privacy in the constitution. how do you feel about that?

The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment.

What about the death penalty? anything with that phrase?

The question whether capital punishment was cruel and unusual was not considered until 1972. In Furman v. Georgia, a divided Court held that the death penalty as then typically administered for murder and rape was so “arbitrary” and “freakish” as to be cruel and unusual.

Bush hasn't put anyone in Gitmo to death has he? So what's your beef with the administration over this issue?

Henry VIII - You provided some good links, but what you are missing is that the constitutional schloars has suggested that he violated the constitution, but the court has not ruled. So therefore it is in the court of public opinion.

The supreme court has the ultimate say and will require that all the lower courts have their opinions before they get involved. So as of right now, he has not broken any constitutional law.

Blueridge - the same answer applies to you. If the supreme court rules he broke a passage of the constitution for his wiretap program, then you are right. However can you please site how 1) this personally affected you or 2) how a citizen of the USA was affected by this?

SlyKitty - what you are missing here is that a majority of the states must ratify any amendment to the US Constitution. You need 3/4 majority of all of the states to get this amendment passed. So basically you need 38 states to approve this. We have had 25 amendments. The 25th amendment was only recently approved and voting on it started in 1789. There are no time limits set for this one to be ratified.

So in 235 years, it has be modified only 25 times. Not quite a living document. The 1st 10 were ratified immediately and in the 35 years I have been following politics, I can't remember it ever being modified.

Answer 1

May I ask where in the Constitution a president is allowed to sign a bill into law and then, (through a signing statement) declare that he will not abide by that newly created law?

You're right, there's no mention in the Constitution for abortion. The Constitution is the framework underwhich all laws that are passed subsequently are judged. The law of the land is that an abortion (given the constraints by the high court) is legal.

The Supreme court broke the Constitution? How is that possible? It's their job (as listed in the Constitution) to interpret the Constitution.

Answer 2

Bush has violated the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment and the Eighth Amendment. Some might argue additional violations but I think those suffice.

The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution. There are many vague terms used in the Constitution and it is their responsibility to determine what they mean.

Answer 3

The Constitution was written in vague language for a reason. It was meant to be a living document that would have relevance for a long, long time. It is up to the Supreme Court Justices to interpret the Constitution and for the President and Congress to uphold it. So far, I would say that GW Bush has not done that. Anyone who says it's nothing more than a piece of paper surely has no respect for it.

EDIT: That fact that it can be changed at all makes it a living document. And it has been interpreted by many people over many years, each person has had their own take on what it means. It is that interpretation that has given us gun control laws, pornography laws, etc.

Answer 4

Bush has broken the US Constitution by:

Banning Iraq War Protests:
http://digg.com/politics/Bush_Outlaws_War_Protest_Citizens_Face_Full_Asset_Seizure

Not Allowing a Citizen's Right to Habeas Corpus:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0928-20.htm

Allowing Torture of Enemy Combatants and Signing a Bill That Allows It:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=15archive/&entry_id=9952

Jack Cafferty and his viewers sums everthing up very nicely:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PreAF6FjGyg

The phucker needs impeached but Reid and Pelosi are on his side!

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE FACSICM SHEEPLE!!!!

Answer 5

Fourth Amendment. And yes, "Constitutional scholars" are indeed saying that Bush HAS violated the Constitution.

Open your eyes.

Answer 6

PLAIN AND SIMPLE:

bush has violated the Fourth Amendment:

"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."

OK.

Now - read the Fourth Amendment five or six times. Get it in your head. NOW read the Patriot Act.





Would you like for me to walk you through it?

Answer 7

I'm going to post my answer from a previous question. There are three types of Americans. The first group thinks that unless it is directly prohibited in the Constitution it's o.k. The second thinks that it must be directly stated in the Constitution for it to be o.k. The third group just wishes the first two would shut the f#ck up.

Answer 8

Bush has broken no constitutional Law.
Your statement about the constitution not permitting abortion does not make sense. The constitution can't possibly mention every thing that is permitted. There's nothing in the constitution saying that I'm permitted to go to the bath room this morning, but I went.
But wait, I'm reading your question wrong. You didn't question abortion being permitted, only the "word" abortion.
I doubt the writers of the constitution forbid any word .

Answer 9

They have commit ed Treason against the United States by exposing an undercover CIA operative, thereby putting all agents and the entire nation at risk. This was done out of personal spite from The Great Divider.

The "Executive Branch" is also eligible for trial at The Hague for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity by deliberately deceiving America and the world about the reasons for the invasion, by invading a sovereign nation without just cause, by crimes committed during the occupation, by continuing lies concerning the occupation, and a host of other reasons.

The conviction of The Tyrant and Great Deceiver for these crimes would not be difficult. He could occupy the same berth that Slobadon Milosavich once held, as it has been vacant for some time.

Answer 10

You might want to check this out:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

http://catch22.newsvine.com/_news/2006/07/31/307529-democrats-document-26-laws-broken-by-bush-administration

http://greatmartin.blogster.com/bush_broken_750_laws.html

http://hnn.us/articles/23297.html

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_9365.shtml

The last one is especially interesting.