News Has President Bush broken his oath?

  • Thread starter schwarzchildradius
  • Start date

schwarzchildradius

Has President Bush broken his oath to "Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States" ?

The Constitution (link0) clearly specifies the separation of church and state (link1-1st am), protects against unlawful searches and seizures (link-4th am), as lying to the congress (link2-false statement act), and protects the right to vote (link3-15th am).

The President has challenged the separation of church and state with the Faith Based Community Initiative.(link8) (link9-FBCI)
The President has passed laws in the Patriot Act (link4) which enable the government to conduct searches and seizures without probable cause.
The President has clearly lied to congress and the American public (link5).
The President has passed laws in the Help America Vote Act (link7) which provided money for no-paper -trail voting machines but no oversight on their implementation until 2006; the machines purchased with tax-payer money are proven by scientific analysis (link6) sucepteble to outright fraud.

There may be more, but this fact pattern is a disturbing tip of the iceberg and is in my humble opinion more than enough proof that President Bush has broken his oath to Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States.
___________________
(link0)http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
(link1)http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
(link2)http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1001.html
(link3)http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxv.html
(link4)http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
(link5)http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/
(link6)http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf
(link7)http://fecweb1.fec.gov/hava/hava.htm [Broken]
(link8)http://www.au.org/site/PageServer
(link9)http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/ [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ShawnD

Science Advisor
658
1
He sure has. The "patriot act" should have its name changed to the "nazi act".
 
I think that you meant to refer to link 3 regarding false statements.
 
55
2
The "Seperation of Church and State" clause is hardly fully clear.

The Patriot act has yet to be overturned by the Supreme court, and on the contrary has been upheld in many cases.
 
90
0
And dont forget possibly the most important of all: the denial of US citizens' right to a full trial and legal representation with a lawyer.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,992
5,146
Just a note (I won't participate in the rhetoric slinging), signing a law which was later overturned by the USSC isn't something any president has ever been impeached for.
 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
This applies to congress, NOT the president.


or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Congress has not prohibited the free exercise of religion.

This amendment says nothing about "the separation of church and state". It only says that congress shall not establish a religion, or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

schwarzchildradius

russ_watters said:
Just a note (I won't participate in the rhetoric slinging), signing a law which was later overturned by the USSC isn't something any president has ever been impeached for.
I never called for the Impeachment process, simply pointing out that he has broken his oath.
You haven't given any proof. You have only made a bunch of false accusations based on what you think the constitution should have said.
The President has signed the HAVA, the USA Patriot act, and appointed the FBCI without the congress's approval. He also lied to the congress, a crime punishable by 5 years in prison under this statute:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1001.html
Also, the US military under the command of the commander in chief, President Bush, may appoint Gen. Jasim Mohamed Saleh, a former general in Saddam Hussein's elite Republican Guard, which seems to be a clear violation of this little statute:
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
 
schwarzchildradius said:
...He also lied to the congress...
The president has not lied to congress.

US military under the command of the commander in chief, President Bush, may appoint Gen. Jasim Mohamed Saleh, a former general in Saddam Hussein's elite Republican Guard, which seems to be a clear violation of this little statute...
The key word here is former . Britain is our former enemy as well.

You bend the facts to reach your flawed conclusions.
 

Zero

Bush doesn't care about the law, and neither do his supporters. Theirs is a radical anti-American agenda, and it must be, ummm...stopped and stuff.
 
Zero said:
Bush doesn't care about the law, and neither do his supporters.
LOL. Wow! 150 million or so Bush supporters that don't care about the law! My goodness, sounds terrible. Should we all be imprisoned?
 

Zero

hughes johnson said:
LOL. Wow! 150 million or so Bush supporters that don't care about the law! My goodness, sounds terrible. Should we all be imprisoned?
Nope...locking him up should do the trick. :smile:

Sorry, BTW...I meant the financial and political supporters, not the poor souls who got tricked into voting for him.
 
One example of the privacy rights issue is the supposed implementation of FBI blackboxes right beside your ISP's servers. No big deal really (sarcasm), it will just monitor for incoming and outgoing packets, look at the message of your e-mail, who you're sending the e-mail to, track down the web pages you visited, search for keywords to trace and track down an individual. All under the guise of "anti-terrorism".

I understand Freedom is not absolute but this is just pushing it.
 
Last edited:

schwarzchildradius

hughes johnson said:
The president has not lied to congress.



The key word here is former . Britain is our former enemy as well.

You bend the facts to reach your flawed conclusions.
Let me see if I can get this straight, because it's important. The US military could appoint Saddam to run Iraq, because he is a former enemy and it would be justified in your mind because of that word? No. No formal war has been declared. We've been told for a year that the insurgents are former Ba'ath party elements and that those elements are the enemies of the United States. Giving them aid and comfort then is, by definition, treason. Luckily, for this logic in any case, they may not appoint General Saleh.
You bend the facts to reach your flawed conclusions
Absolutely not. If you really believe this then you are having some trouble with reading comprehension.


The Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional:

"Federal judge rules part of Patriot Act unconstitutional
Monday, January 26, 2004 Posted: 4:54 PM EST (2154 GMT)


LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A federal judge has declared unconstitutional a portion of the USA Patriot Act that bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated international terrorist organizations.

The ruling marks the first court decision to declare a part of the post-September 11, 2001 anti-terrorism statute unconstitutional, said David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who argued the case on behalf of the Humanitarian Law Project.

In a ruling handed down late Friday and made available Monday, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins said the ban on providing "expert advice or assistance" is impermissibly vague, in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments.

John Tyler, the Justice Department attorney who argued the case, had no comment and referred calls to the department press office in Washington. A message left there was not immediately returned.

The case before the court involved five groups and two U.S. citizens seeking to provide support for lawful, nonviolent activities on behalf of Kurdish refugees in Turkey.

The Humanitarian Law Project, which brought the lawsuit, said the plaintiffs were threatened with 15 years in prison if they advised groups on seeking a peaceful resolution of the Kurds' campaign for self-determination in Turkey.

The judge's ruling said the law, as written, does not differentiate between impermissible advice on violence and encouraging the use of peaceful, nonviolent means to achieve goals.

"The USA Patriot Act places no limitation on the type of expert advice and assistance which is prohibited and instead bans the provision of all expert advice and assistance regardless of its nature," the judge said.

Cole declared the ruling "a victory for everyone who believes the war on terrorism ought to be fought consistent with constitutional principles."

"
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/26/patriot.act.ap/ [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
schwarzchildradius said:
Let me see if I can get this straight, because it's important. The US military could appoint Saddam to run Iraq, because he is a former enemy and it would be justified in your mind because of that word?
Do you have trouble understanding what former means? Do you know what a straw man is? You should review the thread on reading comprehension.

Holding a grudge against arabs who are former enemies is hateful, intolerant and racist. You should learn to be more forgiving.
 

Related Threads for: Has President Bush broken his oath?

  • Last Post
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
Replies
69
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
87
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
87
Views
14K

Hot Threads

Top