Is the US leaving the backdoor open to tyranny?

• bigmanbt

  majorspark;399842 wrote:Save the congress were innocent bystanders BS. They shirked their constitutional duties as well. I am not saying the Bush administration didn't violate the constitution, but to say his were the greatest is BS. FDR and Lincoln get that reward.

  
  Didn't see your post before I posted mine but couldn't agree more. FDR and Lincoln were by far the worst, and it's hardly debatable.
• Footwedge

  jhay78;399869 wrote:I must have missed in that article where Sowell says, "Now GW Bush- that guy was a great president who did everything right and before whom every future president should bow."

  Exactly. That's my point on Sowell being a partisan hack. You will never be able to google search Sowell writing a scathing article on his beloved George Bush for shitting on the constitution.
  \

  Disagree with the Bush/torture/Geneva Convention thing. Simulated drowning/waterboarding is NOT torture. If you want to talk about mistreatment of prisoners, that's another issue.

  There have been multiple threads discussing waterboarding on here. Rest assured, waterboarding is most definitely torture. Even war monger McCain calls it as such. Even more disgusting on this subject, the "tyrrany" of covering up this practice by the likes of Cheney, Bush, John Yoo and many others. Talk about abusing the constitution. It doesn't get any worse than that.
• Footwedge

  bigmanbt;399955 wrote:Didn't see your post before I posted mine but couldn't agree more. FDR and Lincoln were by far the worst, and it's hardly debatable.

  Don't know what Lincoln did or didn't do. But what FDR did is highly debatable in terms of Constitutional abuse. Were not the new new deal items not voted for and amended? Well yes they were. Now you and Sparky can argue all you want on whether the New Deal was good for the country, but to suggest that they were unconstitutional is just plain old laughable.
  
  And in relation to the topic at hand....has the Congress passed new legislation making it legal to torture POWs? Has the Constitution passed new legislation claiming that it's OK to manipulate intelligence to enter wars? Or to start them? As for LBJ....I mentioned him above as someone who lied about Vietnam. At least the guy didn't covertly promote torture and then try to cover it up. He also didn't illegally wiretap Americans, nor did he suspend the Writ of habeous corpus.
  
  No...I'm sorry.....Bush and his minions were the absolute worst abusers of constitutional law. The man earned his 23% exit approval rating.
• isadore

  Major Sparks
  To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer
  
  
  Despite the obvious weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, they were the constitution of the United States and the states sent delegates to the Convention not to write a new Constitution but to consider possibly making changes in the Articles, even at that Rhode Island refused to send a delegationl, If the states had been aware the delegates would throw out the document many of them would not have sent delegates to the Convention.
  I am hardly an admirer of Madison. But like a blind pig, he could occasionally find a truffle. His support for the Constitution in 1787 is definitely a high point for him. He would later betray Washington politically. Become a sycophantic follower of Jefferson. Author the Virginia Resolution that would be used to support the pernicious doctrine of states rights and provide intellectual support for the slavery faction in our nation. As Secretary of State and as President, he took part in the Jeffersonian effort to disarm America and lead our nation to near destruction in the War of 1812. Chastened by the effects of states rights on our nation he temporarily abandoned some of the evil ideas to support the foundation of the 2nd Bank of the United States, permanent army and high tariffs. But in old age with increasing senility he strongly supported those states rights concepts that have supported some of the greatest evils in American history.
  
  But at his patriotic best what does he have to say in 1788 about the Necessary and Proper Clause:
  ‘Without the substance of this power, the whole Constitution would be a dead letter.”
  On the impossibility of enumeration
  “Had the convention attempted a positive enumeration of the powers necessary and proper for carrying their other powers into effect, the attempt would have involved a complete digest of laws on every subject to which the Constitution relates; accommodated too, not only to the existing state of things, but to all the possible changes which futurity may produce; for in every new application of a general power, the particular powers, which are the means of attaining the object of the general power, must always necessarily vary with that object, and be often properly varied whilst the object remains the same..”
  On the relationship to the states
  “In fine, the world would have seen, for the first time, a system of government founded on an inversion of the fundamental principles of all government; it would have seen the authority of the whole society every where subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members.”
  http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa44.htm
• majorspark

  

  Footwedge;400201 wrote:Don't know what Lincoln did or didn't do. But what FDR did is highly debatable in terms of Constitutional abuse. Were not the new new deal items not voted for and amended? Well yes they were. Now you and Sparky can argue all you want on whether the New Deal was good for the country, but to suggest that they were unconstitutional is just plain old laughable.

  Apparently you are only for a strict interpretation of the constitution when it involves the issues of war. FDR's domestic violations of the constitution can be up for debate. However his internment of well over 100 thousand people of a certain ethnic background and the majority of them being American citizens, without due process of law, well what would you call that? Imagine your buddy Bush doing the same with muslim or Americans of middle eastern decent. Something tells me you would go ape shit.
  

  By presidential directive, 120,000 Japanese residents, 80,000 of whom were American citizens by birth, were taken from their homes, farms and businesses and interned at relocation sites far inland.

  http://campaigningforhistory.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/franklin-d-roosevelt/
  

  Footwedge;400201 wrote:And in relation to the topic at hand....has the Congress passed new legislation making it legal to torture POWs? Has the Constitution passed new legislation claiming that it's OK to manipulate intelligence to enter wars? Or to start them? As for LBJ....I mentioned him above as someone who lied about Vietnam. At least the guy didn't covertly promote torture and then try to cover it up. He also didn't illegally wiretap Americans, nor did he suspend the Writ of habeous corpus.

  Something thing tells me that if past presidents had the luxury of the technology of wire tapping their enemies foreign and domestic they most definitely would have used it. Especially during the Civil War. You can claim FDR did not suspend the writ of habeous corpus all you want. It is the denial of due process from unlawful detention. Maybe you can ask those Americans that were rounded up and forced from their homes what they think.
  

  Footwedge;400201 wrote:No...I'm sorry.....Bush and his minions were the absolute worst abusers of constitutional law. The man earned his 23% exit approval rating.

  As for Lincoln during the civil war, he did suspend the writ of habeous corpus. He had southern sympathizers imprisoned with out due process. Both in the press and in state government. Imagine your buddy Bush arresting members of the press and state politicians for their anti-war statements. Lincoln propagated a war between the states to preserve the union that took the lives of nearly 600,000 Americans, without a constitutional declaration. A domestic dispute of federal authority enforced by the taking of arms against its own citizens. Not all southern states wished secession. Some desired a political solution concerning the issue of slavery. But refused to take up arms and force adherence to the union. The only good thing that came of the civil war was the end of the scourge of slavery. The civil war no doubt hastened its end. One can argue whether it was worth the snuffing of nearly 600,000 American lives.
• Footwedge

  Spark...not going to go line by line here with you because of time constraints. And your points are well taken regarding the Japaneses internments. Isn't it funny how when a war breaks out, all bets are off regarding the constitution? You can also add in Harry Truman, who tried desperately to nationalize our biggest industry (in 1952)...steel. That was shot down by the SC as being....drum roll....unconstitutional.
  
  But my point has been made on this thread. You cited an article written by Sowell in a blatant attempt to single out Obama for doing things out of line with our constitution...using the t word countless times. The first 5 or 6 responders were all like .."yeah..look what he's doing, blah, blah, blah".
  
  I have my own issues with the current president. If you on the right want to complain about his policies, that's what these types of blog sites are for. But please, don't make Sowell out to be some kind of political genius when he cites some relatively mundane constitutional issues, when previous presidents have done things far, far worse than what Obama has done.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I see it in a totally different way than you do, Footie. (it could be bias on my part, that's debatable)
  
  But, I don't necessarily care when people started noticing and paying attention. I'm talking about the average everyday people, not just Sowell. But I do care that more and more people finally are.
  Is President Obama the obvious catalyst for this? Well... between him and Bush the answer is a resounding yes.
  But, so what?
  At least it's happening, which I think is a GOOD THING!
  
  What do ya think about that, Footie?
• Footwedge

  CenterBHSFan;401328 wrote:I see it in a totally different way than you do, Footie. (it could be bias on my part, that's debatable)
  
  But, I don't necessarily care when people started noticing and paying attention. I'm talking about the average everyday people, not just Sowell. But I do care that more and more people finally are.
  Is President Obama the obvious catalyst for this? Well... between him and Bush the answer is a resounding yes.
  But, so what?
  At least it's happening, which I think is a GOOD THING!
  
  What do ya think about that, Footie?

  
  I think that I'm a GOPer that leans to the left on many issues and your a Democrat who leans to the right on most issues. As such, we both need to get our meds adjusted. That's what I think. LOL.
• believer

  

  Footwedge;401301 wrote:...when previous presidents have done things far, far worse than what Obama has done.

  It's still relatively early in the BHO presidency. If we are unfortunate enough to have to endure a second term, I'm reasonably confident when all is said and done, BHO will rank right up there with the worst of the constitutional abusers.
  
  Hell even his qualifications to occupy the office is open to constitutional debate...but I digress.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Footwedge;401376 wrote:I think that I'm a GOPer that leans to the left on many issues and your a Democrat who leans to the right on most issues. As such, we both need to get our meds adjusted. That's what I think. LOL.

  
  Which is especially true for me due to the extremely tortuous day I had in Pittsburgh last night! haha