• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What the Constitution Says About an Imperial Presidency

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
While President Bush is making his convoluted argument that, somehow, the AUMF authorized him to illegally wiretap Americans, thus making the action legal, although Congress never gave him that authority, even when he explicitly asked for it, one needs to look at the final arbiter of this argument, the Constitution of the United States itself. As the author of my link points out:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Besides, terrorism is not the only new danger of this era. Another is the administration's argument that because the president is commander in chief, he is the "sole organ for the nation in foreign affairs." That non sequitur is refuted by the Constitution's plain language, which empowers Congress to ratify treaties, declare war, fund and regulate military forces, and make laws "necessary and proper" for the execution of all presidential powers . Those powers do not include deciding that a law - FISA, for example - is somehow exempted from the presidential duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."


Our forefathers created a system of checks and balances for a reason - So that one branch of government could not ride roughshod over the other 2 branches, thereby creating the equivalent of an imperial monarch.

Article is here.

Bush has, in recent days, managed to derail a freight train coming at him from his own party, where 2 more members of the judiciary committee threatened to join Democrats, thus creating a very ugly situation for him. The president now has no choice but to accept Congressional oversight for his actions as commander in chief, which the framers of the Constitution intended. Bush defies Congress now at his own peril, and should Democrats take over either branch of Congress this fall, Bush is in deep doo doo.

Article is here.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
 

Robodoon

Banned
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
426
Reaction score
0
Location
Lakeport CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
danarhea said:
While President Bush is making his convoluted argument that, somehow, the AUMF authorized him to illegally wiretap Americans, thus making the action legal, although Congress never gave him that authority, even when he explicitly asked for it, one needs to look at the final arbiter of this argument, the Constitution of the United States itself. As the author of my link points out:



Our forefathers created a system of checks and balances for a reason - So that one branch of government could not ride roughshod over the other 2 branches, thereby creating the equivalent of an imperial monarch.

Article is here.




Bush has, in recent days, managed to derail a freight train coming at him from his own party, where 2 more members of the judiciary committee threatened to join Democrats, thus creating a very ugly situation for him. The president now has no choice but to accept Congressional oversight for his actions as commander in chief, which the framers of the Constitution intended. Bush defies Congress now at his own peril, and should Democrats take over either branch of Congress this fall, Bush is in deep doo doo.

Article is here.
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
Our Founders made us a REPUBLIC for a reason, we would be good to remember that.

Thomas Jefferson
"In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
George Washington
"Government is not reason; it is not eloqence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
We can not take the promises from Leaders as truth, it would be foolish to do so, I wish the Americans would seek the Constitution, instead of Warm fuzzy "promises" from leaders who have already lied to us.


Daniel Webster
"Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world."
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I totally agree, danarhea. This business of Bush saying that he is here to protect Americans in any way he essentially sees fit is bogus. His oath is as follows:

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

http://rs6.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pioaths.html
He swears to defend the Constitution--not the American people. While I appreciate that he wants to protect us, violating the Constitution isn't the way to show you want to protect us.

Regardless, his actions speak otherwise.

- He wants to allow some company from the United Arab Emirates to protect our ports? Are you kidding me?

- He was not prepared for Katrina--how the hell is he going to be prepared for another terrorist attack?

- He is willing to intercept phone calls between an al Qaeda member overseas talking to someone in the US, but he's not willing to look into ways for how to legally intercept phone calls between al Qaeda members within the US, particularly when it is clear that is how 9-11 was organized, in part? (If he really thought he had the power to conduct warrantless surveillance, he would have included surveillance between al Qaeda members in the US.)

Yeah, Mr. President, you are here to protect us from terrorism. :roll:
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
aps said:
I totally agree, danarhea. This business of Bush saying that he is here to protect Americans in any way he essentially sees fit is bogus. His oath is as follows:



He swears to defend the Constitution--not the American people. While I appreciate that he wants to protect us, violating the Constitution isn't the way to show you want to protect us.

Regardless, his actions speak otherwise.

- He wants to allow some company from the United Arab Emirates to protect our ports? Are you kidding me?

- He was not prepared for Katrina--how the hell is he going to be prepared for another terrorist attack?

- He is willing to intercept phone calls between an al Qaeda member overseas talking to someone in the US, but he's not willing to look into ways for how to legally intercept phone calls between al Qaeda members within the US, particularly when it is clear that is how 9-11 was organized, in part? (If he really thought he had the power to conduct warrantless surveillance, he would have included surveillance between al Qaeda members in the US.)

Yeah, Mr. President, you are here to protect us from terrorism. :roll:
Eisenhower was a prophet. Remember the last speech he gave before he left office?
 

fooligan

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
170
Reaction score
0
Location
G.R. MI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
danarhea said:
Our forefathers created a system of checks and balances for a reason - So that one branch of government could not ride roughshod over the other 2 branches, thereby creating the equivalent of an imperial monarch.
There is only one imperial monarchy in America. The Supreme Court.

A close second is the entire congress.

Term limits, people.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
fooligan said:
There is only one imperial monarchy in America. The Supreme Court.

A close second is the entire congress.

Term limits, people.
I agree to an extent. House should be limited, and Senate should also be limited, though not to the extent the House is. Supreme Court should NOT be limiited. Our founding fathers gave longer terms to Senators and lifetime appointments for justices for a good reason. They did not want the government changing on a whim, but favored a slower process of change. That way, they felt the Constitution would be better preserved from mob rule.
 
Top Bottom