POLL---Willl Bush obey the Constitution, or set himself above it?

[Hayabusa Rider]

Regarding Padilla.


As I am sure you know, Padilla is a US citizen arrested in the US and denied his Constitutional rights.

Provided that the Supreme Court find this action unconstitutional, will Bush then relent? Or will he continue to hold Padilla without trial.


THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT. I can see people trying to divert this thread with "They will do what Bush says" or some such thing.

 

[Jhhnn]

He'd have no choice, within the constitutional framework. Any attempt to do otherwise would initiate a constitutional crisis, because he would be disavowing his oath to uphold the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court...

As we've seen with Nixon and Clinton, no citizen is above the law. Failure to comply would invoke contempt of court charges and impeachment/conviction- not even his congressional cronies could spin it into something palatable to the voters. It would be foolhardy to even try.

Or he could declare martial law, put all his detractors behind razor wire, see how long he could hold out as a truly unelected president. Seems unlikely, or at least I hope so...

There's always this, otoh-

http://www.bushwatch.net/mojotoons.htm

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

He does have a choice. This administration has had a history of ignoring the judiciary, and some administration officials likened this to Lincoln suspending habeas corpus, and are justifying it (so far) on similar grounds. The fact that the current situation is not even remotely as threatening as the Civil War has not seem to made much difference

 

[Moonbeam]

God is above the constitution, so it depends on what He says.

 

[Jhhnn]

The constitutional scope of Lincoln's decision is well defined-

'The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 2, says,"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."'

We're obviously not in the throes of a rebellion or invasion. Here's a good article on the subject, including the quote above-

http://hometown.aol.com/gordonkwok/habeas_corpus.html

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The constitutional scope of Lincoln's decision is well defined-

'The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 2, says,"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."'

We're obviously not in the throes of a rebellion or invasion. Here's a good article on the subject, including the quote above-

http://hometown.aol.com/gordonkwok/habeas_corpus.html

The U.S. is no longer "Governed" by that "Constitution". A series of new "Pieces of Paper" called "Acts" such as the Patriot Acts have done a complete end around the original. It is the UNanny States Of America now and shortly will be the UNanny Estades De Mexico as soon as the population shift is complete.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The constitutional scope of Lincoln's decision is well defined-

'The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 2, says,"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."'

We're obviously not in the throes of a rebellion or invasion. Here's a good article on the subject, including the quote above-

http://hometown.aol.com/gordonkwok/habeas_corpus.html

The U.S. is no longer "Governed" by that "Constitution". A series of new "Pieces of Paper" called "Acts" such as the Patriot Acts have done a complete end around the original. It is the UNanny States Of America now and shortly will be the UNanny Estades De Mexico as soon as the population shift is complete.

So you have a problem with Americans of Hispanic heritage?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The constitutional scope of Lincoln's decision is well defined-

'The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 2, says,"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."'

We're obviously not in the throes of a rebellion or invasion. Here's a good article on the subject, including the quote above-

http://hometown.aol.com/gordonkwok/habeas_corpus.html

The U.S. is no longer "Governed" by that "Constitution". A series of new "Pieces of Paper" called "Acts" such as the Patriot Acts have done a complete end around the original. It is the UNanny States Of America now and shortly will be the UNanny Estades De Mexico as soon as the population shift is complete.

So you have a problem with Americans of Hispanic heritage?

Bingo because the are not Americans, they are here ILLEGALLY.

Must be something about the word "Illegal" the AT experts in here do not understand.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The constitutional scope of Lincoln's decision is well defined-

'The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 2, says,"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."'

We're obviously not in the throes of a rebellion or invasion. Here's a good article on the subject, including the quote above-

http://hometown.aol.com/gordonkwok/habeas_corpus.html

The U.S. is no longer "Governed" by that "Constitution". A series of new "Pieces of Paper" called "Acts" such as the Patriot Acts have done a complete end around the original. It is the UNanny States Of America now and shortly will be the UNanny Estades De Mexico as soon as the population shift is complete.

So you have a problem with Americans of Hispanic heritage?

Bingo because the are not Americans, they are here ILLEGALLY.

Must be something about the word "Illegal" the AT experts in here do not understand.

All Hispanics are here illegally? Dude....we took like 1/2 of Mexico- you think they just picked up and left? As for illegal immigration...perhaps we should legalize all of them so they can start paying taxes and whatever, no?

 

[maluckey]

Bush will only follow the Supreme Court's ruling. I really don't see the Bush Administration backing down until the final word is said. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention to G.W. Bush very well.


On another note.........Does the word Conquistador mean anything to you? It means a person that goes on conquests by profession.

Don't start with the "we took their country" crap about Mexico. They took and enslaved an entire culture, dominated through sheer force and aggression 3/4 of a continent, looted their temples, and burned their native cities. They then took this vast, incredibly rich empire and ran it into the ground. They are still at war with the Indians in Chiapas, and are committing atrocities against them. They (the Mexicans) are not victims and never were.

Illegals are illegals are illegals.

Until they are legal, they SHOULD be treated like criminals. The Mexican Government should stop tacit support for illegals, and get on with the business of building a country not riddled with crime and corruption. Until then........

We owe them nothing.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The constitutional scope of Lincoln's decision is well defined-

'The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 2, says,"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."'

We're obviously not in the throes of a rebellion or invasion. Here's a good article on the subject, including the quote above-

http://hometown.aol.com/gordonkwok/habeas_corpus.html

The U.S. is no longer "Governed" by that "Constitution". A series of new "Pieces of Paper" called "Acts" such as the Patriot Acts have done a complete end around the original. It is the UNanny States Of America now and shortly will be the UNanny Estades De Mexico as soon as the population shift is complete.

So you have a problem with Americans of Hispanic heritage?

Bingo because the are not Americans, they are here ILLEGALLY.

Must be something about the word "Illegal" the AT experts in here do not understand.

I understand the term illegal and I also noticed that you never mentioned the word illegal in your post.

 

[amok]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Bush will only follow the Supreme Court's ruling. I really don't see the Bush Administration backing down until the final word is said. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention to G.W. Bush very well.


On another note.........Does the word Conquistador mean anything to you? It means a person that goes on conquests by profession.

Don't start with the "we took their country" crap about Mexico. They took and enslaved an entire culture, dominated through sheer force and aggression 3/4 of a continent, looted their temples, and burned their native cities. They then took this vast, incredibly rich empire and ran it into the ground. They are still at war with the Indians in Chiapas, and are committing atrocities against them. They (the Mexicans) are not victims and never were.

Illegals are illegals are illegals.

Until they are legal, they SHOULD be treated like criminals. The Mexican Government should stop tacit support for illegals, and get on with the business of building a country not riddled with crime and corruption. Until then........

We owe them nothing.

There are times when I'm forced to realize my total lack of knowledge regarding history, and this is one of them. Almost makes me wish I had taken the time to learn . I had always thought that the Conquistadors and the actions you described were products of Spain. What time frame are you talking about here?

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The constitutional scope of Lincoln's decision is well defined-

'The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 2, says,"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."'

We're obviously not in the throes of a rebellion or invasion. Here's a good article on the subject, including the quote above-

http://hometown.aol.com/gordonkwok/habeas_corpus.html

The U.S. is no longer "Governed" by that "Constitution". A series of new "Pieces of Paper" called "Acts" such as the Patriot Acts have done a complete end around the original. It is the UNanny States Of America now and shortly will be the UNanny Estades De Mexico as soon as the population shift is complete.

At first I thought Dave was just a brainwashed liberal.
Now it has become clear that he doesn't follow party lines and is just a nut.

 

[maluckey]

Let me see, this comment:

we took like 1/2 of Mexico- you think they just picked up and left?

Pretty much opened the field to include any semi-relevant dates and/or times. To be current, you have to use the "riddled with corruption", and "war in Chiapas". Either way, Mexico is it's own worst enemy, and one needs not look far or hard to find the money trails to corruption.

On to the subject. If people truly think that Bush can ignore the courts, as the poll suggests, then they are dreaming. If the Supreme court rules that Bush has overstepped his authority, he will back down. The court will most likey not rule on Padilla per-se, but on the authority of the Commander in Chief to hold enemy combatants, and the definition thereof. Bush will wait till this ruling to do anything with Padilla.

 

[Witling]

I had thought I quit this board. But, as with any junkie, I'll try a little "controlled" experimentation. Bush does not have to comply with the Supreme Court. He probably will, but he doesn't have to. There was a case in Andrew Jackson's presidency in which the Supreme Court said something like "Those people can't take that Indian land." I don't remember the case name but it would be fairly easy to look it up. Jackson said [approximately], "They made the rule, let them enforce it." That was then, this is now. Truman backed down from seizing the steel industry during the Korean war when the Supreme Court said it wasn't proper.

Amok, don't be discouraged that you didn't study history more thoroughly, most of the rest of the people on this board aren't even aware of their ignorance, let alone regret it. Just shoot your mouth off with an opinion like about 3/4's of the board does. Don't be limited by facts.

 

[conehead433]

"There was a case in Andrew Jackson's presidency in which the Supreme Court said something like "Those people can't take that Indian land."

Interesting that you mention this. Reminds me of a country going to war with another country claiming their leader had killed hundreds of thousands of their own citizens. Of course when we were wiping out the Indians it was OK because they were savage beasts and not really humans. And besides we were shooting them with guns so they had ample opportunity to dodge the bullets and to fight back with their weapons of mass destruction (tomahawks, bows and arrows, etc.).

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The constitutional scope of Lincoln's decision is well defined-

'The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 2, says,"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."'

We're obviously not in the throes of a rebellion or invasion. Here's a good article on the subject, including the quote above-

http://hometown.aol.com/gordonkwok/habeas_corpus.html

The U.S. is no longer "Governed" by that "Constitution". A series of new "Pieces of Paper" called "Acts" such as the Patriot Acts have done a complete end around the original. It is the UNanny States Of America now and shortly will be the UNanny Estades De Mexico as soon as the population shift is complete.

At first I thought Dave was just a brainwashed liberal.
Now it has become clear that he doesn't follow party lines and is just a nut.

 

[Jhhnn]

The whole issue with the Cherokee and Jackson was entirely different, as Jackson successfully exploited a bogus treaty with the cherokee to get his way.

Bush won't have that particular luxury in any of the upcoming rulings. And he's already backing down in the Hamdi case, but we still have a ways to go before he'll be ready to grant equal protection under the law, reference John Walker Lindh...

And I doubt that Dubya would relish a confrontation between the Secret Service and the Federal Marshall's office when and if the SCOTUS were to issue a contempt citation demanding his arrest. No man is above the law, not even the President...

 

[tnitsuj]

If the president defied the Supreme Court he would be out off office in about a week, two tops.

 

[Czar]

scary thing when about 50% of the people on P&N support bush while only 34% think he will follow the constitution, so many who support him even though they dont belive he will follow the constiution

 

[Corn]

so many who support him even though they dont belive he will follow the constiution

And what brought you to this conclusion? Are you sure that this vote participated by a 50 - 50 split Bush supporter/detractors?

LR was right, anyone can take "data" and prove whatever they want. Give me a break.

Of course you believe this nonsense came as the result of "superior" logic, LOL. Carry on.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Corn

so many who support him even though they dont belive he will follow the constiution

And what brought you to this conclusion? Are you sure that this vote participated by a 50 - 50 split Bush supporter/detractors?

LR was right, anyone can take "data" and prove whatever they want. Give me a break.

Of course you believe this nonsense came as the result of "superior" logic, LOL. Carry on.

there have been quite a few polls on this forum about Bush, they usualy result in about 50% for and 50% against

 

[arsbanned]

The Indians, as we all know, had a perfect utopia before the white man arrived, treating each other with absolute kindness and dignity.

heh.

 

[Corn]

there have been quite a few polls on this forum about Bush, they usualy result in about 50% for and 50% against

You're going to have to explain the relevancy of that supposed fact with regard to this poll........But first, here's some interesting poll numbers from our very own forum. Kinda makes you go hmmmmm, don't it?

You know what I think is scary? The thought of you operating a motor vehicle and chewing gum at the same time.