Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Has President Bush broken his oath?

  1. May 2, 2004 #1
    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
    (link8)http://www.au.org/site/PageServer
    (link9)http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 2, 2004 #2

    ShawnD

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    He sure has. The "patriot act" should have its name changed to the "nazi act".
     
  4. May 2, 2004 #3
    I think that you meant to refer to link 3 regarding false statements.
     
  5. May 2, 2004 #4
    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.
     
  6. May 2, 2004 #5
    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.
     
  7. May 2, 2004 #6

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  8. May 3, 2004 #7
    This applies to congress, NOT the president.


    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: May 3, 2004
  9. May 3, 2004 #8
    I never called for the Impeachment process, simply pointing out that he has broken his oath.
    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:
     
  10. May 3, 2004 #9
    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.
     
  11. May 3, 2004 #10
    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.
     
  12. May 3, 2004 #11
    LOL. Wow! 150 million or so Bush supporters that don't care about the law! My goodness, sounds terrible. Should we all be imprisoned?
     
  13. May 3, 2004 #12
    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.
     
  14. May 4, 2004 #13
    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: May 4, 2004
  15. May 4, 2004 #14
    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.
    Absolutely not. If you really believe this then you are having some trouble with reading comprehension.


    The Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional:

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/26/patriot.act.ap/
     
  16. May 4, 2004 #15
    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.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Has President Bush broken his oath?
  1. Bush, wartime president (Replies: 18)

Loading...