What part of the constitution has Bush violated? BE SPECIFIC.?

Question

I know the Constitution very well and try as I might, I haven't been able to find any violations. Everything he has done is covered (not specifically) in Presidential Powers in the Constitution and Amendments. Presidential powers are fairly open to interpretation (ex.: Supreme Court decisions), like other perceived or actual citizen rights and the like.

Answer 1

I don't believe that he has explicitly violated the constitution, otherwise there would have been a strong push for impeachment. What he has done is manipulate the powers of his office to make most other politicians obsolete. He used loopholes in war laws to go to war pre-emptively and without a formal declaration. He's used the issue of war to ignore privacy rights and the Geneva convention. He's used the power of the veto over and over again to send congressional legislation to a grinding halt. And he and Cheney even tried to override the right to filibuster when Democrats were very unhappy with some of his judicial appointees.

Really I think what he's done is expose some things in the constitution that may need to be changed. One man should not have as much power as he has wielded.

Answer 2

Let's see - He signed spending bills to send tax dollars to the Gulf Coast, fund "education" (indoctrination), health care (socialist medicine programs Medicaid/medicare/S-CHIP), amd the communist welfare state programs. All of these are violations of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution since there is no authority given for federal interference in these areas. He tried to open our borders and allow anyone into this country despite his duty to defend America.

Answer 3

How about outing a CIA agent? That should be treason!

Answer 4

-- Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/88
-- Contains a complete list of offenses. Charges explicitly citing statutes and laws are listed below:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010607D.shtml

I. FAILURE TO ENSURE THE LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED
Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America, the President has a duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
(1) Self-Exemption From Laws Upon Signing.
(2) Suspension of Basic Legal Proceedings.
(3) Promoting Illegal War

In direct violation of Articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations Charter, a treaty ratified by the United States Senate in 1945 and therefore the supreme law of the land as according to Article VI of the Constitution.
(4) Promoting Torture.
In direct violation of, and as part of a pattern of consistent attempts through executive orders, legal memoranda and alterations to regulations such as the Army Field Manual, to undermine the Federal Torture Statute [18 USC Sec. 2340A];
"The Third Geneva Convention banning torture and abuse of Prisoners of War, as well as non-combatants and unarmed ("enemy") combatants held in detention; and Articles 4 and 32 of the Fourth Geneva Convention... these declarations and treaties being ratified by the United States Senate and therefore the supreme law of the land as according to Article VI of the Constitution"
(5) Promoting Kidnappings and Renditions for Torture.
In direct violation of the United Nations Convention Against Torture, Article 3, and the Fourth Geneva Convention, Articles 31 and 45, the said conventions having been ratified by the United States Senate and therefore the supreme law of the land as according to Article VI of the Constitution.
(6) Use of Illegal Weapons.

II. ABUSE OF OFFICE AND OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
(1) Obstructing Inquiry and Detection.
(2) Replacing the Veto With Signing Statements.

III. FAILURE TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION
(1) Suspension of Due Process.
Violation of rights of habeas corpus and Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights
(2) Unreasonable Searches and Seizures.
Violation of Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights
-- Non-Cooperation with Congress:
In derogation of the legislative functions of the Congress, granted under Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution.
(3) Non-Cooperation With Congress.
(4) Establishment of an Unconstitutional, Parallel Legal System

Answer 5

Opened Guantanamo Bay? People being held indefinetely without trial? - Ok so it's not on US soil but who is running it?

Suspensions of habeus corpeus? Torture?

What you mean is Bush has good lawyers who are helping him use it for loo roll.

Answer 6

I dunno'......spying on American citizens without a warrant seems like a violation. It's particularly cheesey when the authorities have 72 hours after the fact to get a warrant....from a secret court no less. Evidently that law was passed for a reason and as they say, nobody is above the law. The reason for the warrant is so that there's a paper trail from the government to the goverment, or from the 'cops' to the 'court'. Without this paper trail people could simply vanish. Blanket secrecy is out...why? Because warrantless searches were routinely done by King George's 'Homeland Security' bullies. The Founders believed that was wrong. So do I. So do most people. The 4th Amendment clearly states that no warrant shall be issued but upon probable cause. Not getting a warrant means that nobody but the 'cops' decides on what is or isn't probable cause...and that isn't how it's suppose to work. So, the short answer to your question is that the Bush administration violated the constitution big time and by doing so did not, as the oath of office clearly states, 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States'. If you want to say that George Bush violated the constitution but you don't care, that's one thing, but you can't really deny he didn't do it! No kiddin'!

Answer 7

He exceeded his authority under article two if the constitution by authorizing the wire tapping of people in the US without a court order. If both ends of the call were outside of the country there would be no issue. However if one party is in the US then that party has 4 amendment protection which the president is not authorized to override.
This isn't just my opinion. It's also the opinion of John Dean and Bruce Fein, two constitutional scholars who know a lot more about the subject than you or I do. In the view of Dean Bush committed an impeachable offense when he signed the executive order authorizing the program.

EDIT - To "AmericanPatriot", the reason people are bringing up 4th amendment violations is because they took place! Why do you just shrug it off?
BTW, I'm pretty sure Dean is still a republican and I know that Fein is a conservative republican.

Answer 8

Here's a news source YOU can trust:

WASHINGTON — President Bush's penchant for writing exceptions to laws he has just signed violates the Constitution, an American Bar Association task force says in a report highly critical of the practice.
The ABA group, which includes a one-time FBI director and former federal appeals court judge, said the president has overstepped his authority in attaching challenges to hundreds of new laws.
The attachments, known as bill signing statements, say Bush reserves a right to revise, interpret or disregard measures on national security and constitutional grounds.
"This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy," said the ABA's president, Michael Greco. "If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205205,00.html

Answer 9

In other words, you are saying "give me an answer that agrees with my opinion which isn't as informed as I think it is, and I'll give you 10 points."
That is obvious in the amount of people giving great answers and getting thumbed-down.

Answer 10

This question has been asked AND ANSWERED a million times.

bushlickers are apparently incapable of retaining information.

bush has violated the Constitution in MULTIPLE areas, with the suspension of Habeas Corpus and UNREASONABLE search and seizure being at the top of the list. (spying)

Dozens of CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS all over the country have interviewed and written about it.

Why hasn't he been thrown in jail? Because America bends to power and money, and it always has. Oh, and there's the little issue of bush REWRITING laws to suit his own interpretation.

As in OVER 750 SIGNING STATEMENTS during seven years. MORE THAN ALL PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS COMBINED.

Did you get that?

bush has overridden LAWS which were brought before Congress, in the name of the citizenry, to be INTERPRETED however HE wants to interpret those laws,

OVER SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY TIMES.

More than all previous administrations before him.

Now....what were you saying about WHY he isn't in jail?
******************************


Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.
Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.
But with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override.

Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.
Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.
Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University law professor who has studied the executive power claims Bush made during his first term, said Bush and his legal team have spent the past five years quietly working to concentrate ever more governmental power into the White House.
''There is no question that this administration has been involved in a very carefully thought-out, systematic process of expanding presidential power at the expense of the other branches of government," Cooper said. ''This is really big, very expansive, and very significant."
For the first five years of Bush's presidency, his legal claims attracted little attention in Congress or the media. Then, twice in recent months, Bush drew scrutiny after challenging new laws: a torture ban and a requirement that he give detailed reports to Congress about how he is using the Patriot Act…”

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