DescentBB

Bush had the military invade a sovereign nation without a declaration of war from Congress. That is disallowed by the Constitution (and a violation of the United Nations character, but that's neither here nor there.)

Bush held United States citizens and foreign nationals indefinitely, without charge, and in violation of the writ of habeus corpus included in the Constitution.

Bush invented the term \"unlawful enemy combatant\" to weasel his was out of listening to the Constitution and a major international treaty, the Geneva convention.

These are common knowledge, Will.

Congress did Authorization the Use of Military Forces Against Iraq.

H.J.RES.114

As for the big lie about WMDs 4 years before the big lie you got people like this

\"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.\"
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

\"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.\"
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

\"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.\"
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

\"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.\"
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

\"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.\"
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

\"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.\"
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

\"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.\"
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

So who's big lie are you talking about?

That's an authorization of force, not a declaration of war.

Those quotes are talking about the weapons that were found as a result of UNSCOM inspection.

Another one bites the dust. They never learn, or they don't care.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_delay_trial

Forgot to add this one. It really hits the nail on the head about the Washington political machine and why the common people don't matter in their scheme of things. This is a long excerpt from Matt Taibbi's new book, Griftopia, but what an eyeopener!

Griftopia

null0010 wrote:Bush invented the term "unlawful enemy combatant" to weasel his was out of listening to the Constitution and a major international treaty, the Geneva convention.

From Wiki…

The term "unlawful combatant" has been used for the past century in legal literature, military manuals, and case law.

So unless you are splitting hairs about the “enemy” part…

"Stole election"...LOL!

You “might” be able to make a case for some of those things, but the rest are just piling on like some footloose beat cop, behind in his quota.

null0010 wrote:...

Bush held United States citizens and foreign nationals indefinitely, without charge, and in violation of the writ of habeus corpus included in the Constitution
....

I think this is the only thing you have that could be a crime but that is only if we accept the scenario as you describe it. Before you can claim victory however you'll have to determine if someone, who is a citizen, also takes up arms against the U.S. in support of a foreign force that we are engaged in combat with is still afforded his civil rights or does he surrender them by the act of joining the enemy against us.
We can still hang spies I believe so what ever laws allow us to call someone a spy and hang them without the usual trial may well apply to the citizens you are saying he held improperly. If that is the case then maybe you will have stumbled upon why the democrats, who had the ability, motive to impeach him and command of the justice department didn't do it. I seem to recall hearing that explanation offered in his defense when the issue came up originally.

I think the whole declaration of war issue is a moot point as well because Saddam never followed through on his surrender in the Gulf War so G.W. Bush was technically just resuming the conflict and he can engage in war without declaring it he merely has to stop if Congress doesn't follow up with a declaration in a set period of time ( I don't remember exactly how many days it is I want to say around 20). Congress voted to fund the war so they would have a hard time going back to blame him for not getting their official declaration for a war they voted to fund. You can find many"wars" that we engaged in without declaration.

Let's not even get into the whole flagrantly violating and defecating upon the Fourth Amendment party that is warrentless wiretaps. I'm sure you'll be able to pull some fanboy excuse out of nowhere.

null0010 wrote:Let's not even get into the whole flagrantly violating and defecating upon the Fourth Amendment party that is warrentless wiretaps. I'm sure you'll be able to pull some fanboy excuse out of nowhere.

so lets go here shall we

if you want to talk about Constitutional violations this is a good start.

. Article 1, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution:

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time..."

Obama attempted to vote a pay raise for Hillary Clinton, who was still a member of Congress, and before her term is over, to be named as Secretary of State.

2. Section 9 of the Constitution says - Obama is in complete violation of this clause.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Obama takes Chairmanship of UN Security Council as the rotating chairmanship of the council goes to the U.S. this time around. The normal course of business would have U.S. Ambassador to UN Susan Rice take the gavel.

. Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

13 USC 4 directs-The Secretary of Commerce shall perform the functions and duties imposed upon him by this title, may issue such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out such functions and duties, and may delegate the performance of such functions and duties and the authority to issue such rules and regulations to such officers and employees of the Department of Commerce as he may designate.

President Obama attempted to give the census job to his Chief of Staff, political-hack enforcer, Rahm Emanuel which would put the census right in the hands of President Obama's enforcers which opens the door for illegal acts.

null0010 wrote:Let's not even get into the whole flagrantly violating and defecating upon the Fourth Amendment party that is warrentless wiretaps. I'm sure you'll be able to pull some fanboy excuse out of nowhere.

I'm not offering excuses, I'm trying to show you the difference between rhetoric and law. I'm all in favor of charging him if he's in violation of the law. You just aren't willing to look at the law to see if he is in fact in violation...you seem to be real good at googling for accusations though.

Have you even looked into the law regarding the federal governments ability to legally wiretap without warrants? Something tells me you would have sited it here if you had...

It is flagrantly and obviously unconstitutional. You don't have to be a genius to understand it. If the Fourth Amendment says you need a warrant, then you need a freaking warrant. You can't just pass some law and overrule the Constitution. That's the point of the thing.

Funny how you are for other violations of the constitution passed by laws but not for wiretaps.

null0010 wrote:It is flagrantly and obviously unconstitutional. You don't have to be a genius to understand it. If the Fourth Amendment says you need a warrant, then you need a freaking warrant. You can't just pass some law and overrule the Constitution. That's the point of the thing.

And I've already given you examples of how your simplistic interpretations of the laws must be wrong because we hang spies who were citizens without giving them due process...
So stand there with your fingers in your ears screaming 'I can't hear you nya nya nya nya nya' if you want to.

Heretic wrote:Funny how you are for other violations of the constitution passed by laws but not for wiretaps.

Am I?

null0010 wrote:That's an authorization of force, not a declaration of war.

And what was the Korean War?

null0010 wrote:It is flagrantly and obviously unconstitutional. You don't have to be a genius to understand it. If the Fourth Amendment says you need a warrant, then you need a freaking warrant. You can't just pass some law and overrule the Constitution. That's the point of the thing.

Funny they don't need a warrant at the airports.

woodchip wrote:

null0010 wrote:It is flagrantly and obviously unconstitutional. You don't have to be a genius to understand it. If the Fourth Amendment says you need a warrant, then you need a freaking warrant. You can't just pass some law and overrule the Constitution. That's the point of the thing.

Funny they don't need a warrant at the airports.

When have I ever defended the TSA or the Korean War? I'm loving this constant stream of words-in-my-mouth in this thread.

TSA thing is a little different... you're submitting yourself to something with the prior knowledge of possibly being searched. That's a bit different than your home being invaded/spied on.

Mjolnir wrote:TSA thing is a little different... you're submitting yourself to something with the prior knowledge of possibly being searched. That's a bit different than your home being invaded/spied on.

It's a federal requirement. They masquerade it as "consent" but there is no real choice beyond "fly" or "do not fly." But we're getting off topic; there is a thread for that.

That's still a choice