U.S. Constitution? Will be a thing of the past.

[palehorse]

I'd be willing to give them California... after all, they've pretty much taken it already. 😀

Now, back to reality... this would never happen.

/thread

 

[dmcowen674]

Per the Republican President "It's just a god damned piece of paper".

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I remember talking to people about the N.A.U (North American Union) and the "Amero" (the proposed currency) a few weeks back. Some used the term "tin foil hat wearers" to those that believed it. Well I now invite you to see proof. The active proof being the borders being blurred, illegals can get an ID in new york and coming over in droves. You not only need integration of people to make this happen, but you also need currency to fall in line with each other. The more the three country's blur the lines in nationality and currency, the easier it will be to create one government.

Vincente Fox states about the Amero being "long term". Obviously bush and Fox discussed it. This shows intent of the bush administration undermining American citizens personal liberty in the name of money. The Constitution of the U.S. will be no more, instead profits and power will dictate your life.

http://video.google.com/videop...&type=search&plindex=5

Uh.... See the problem with all this is the EXECUTIVE HAS NO POWER TO DO THAT.

It has to be done by Congress.

Treaties have to ratified by Congress.

Currency is covered in the constitution, and the printing of currency falls under Congress. Some may say the Fed, but if Congress wanted to tomorrow, they could do away with the Fed. Congress has the ultimate control over currency. There will be no "amero".

And technically something along these lines(North American Union) would need a constitutional amendment, and ratified by the States and Congress. The President cannot do sh!t to move something like this forward.

Learn some US Government before you spout off nonsense. Thats why people said it was tin foil hat paranoia.

Thank you for saving me the time to write nearly the exact same response.

/thread

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Per the Republican President "It's just a god damned piece of paper".

Still waiting for you to provide proof of that supposed quote, Dave. I've asked you in several other threads and yet to receive a response.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

You are completely wrong here.

Bush has not tried to override Congress' constitutional powers. If he had their would be an article of impeachment brought ASAP and would pass unanimously....


Has the Bush admin bent the citizens constitutional rights? Yes, Has he tried to bend article 1-8, HELL NO. Congress would never allow that to happen.

I ask you, name one instance where Bush has usurped Congress constitutionally delegated duties...

Welcome back from that rock you've been hiding under the last 7 years. I guess you missed presidential signing statements and the unitary executive.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

EDIT: this has gotten off topic though. The N.A.U. and the Amero is in the works whether you like it or not. I personally am furious about it. Makes me wonder why you aren't. ~~snip~~

Uh because I fully understand what it would take to implement.

It would take Acts of Congress, Constitutional Amendments, AND ratification by the States.

Exactly NONE of those will happen.

And like I said, if Bush usurped Congress explicitly stated constitutional powers. Which is what you are implying is going to happen, they will so smack his ass down.

You are not making the distinction between defacto (functional in fact) and de jure (based on law)

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Per the Republican President "It's just a god damned piece of paper".

Still waiting for you to provide proof of that supposed quote, Dave. I've asked you in several other threads and yet to receive a response.

12-10-2005 Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'

Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

I?ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution ?a goddamned piece of paper.?

12-5-2007 Bush on the Constitution: ?It?s just a goddamned piece of paper?

=============================================
There is no video footage of this so take for it's worth however here is a ton of clips that have associated video footage as well:

The 50 Dumbest Things President Bush Said in His First Term

39. "I hear there's rumors on the Internets that we're going to have a draft." ?presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004 (Watch video)

21. "The really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway." ?explaining why high taxes on the rich are a failed strategy, Annandale, Va., Aug. 9, 2004

17. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." ?State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003, making a claim that administration officials knew at the time to be false

15. "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." ?Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

14. "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." ?Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

6. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere!" ?President George W. Bush, joking about his administration's failure to find WMDs in Iraq as he narrated a comic slideshow during the Radio & TV Correspondents' Association dinner, Washington, D.C., March 24, 2004

5. "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." ?Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000

8. "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." ?speaking underneath a "Mission Accomplished" banner aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I?ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution ?a goddamned piece of paper.?

So, the words of a couple left-wing extremist sites, and hearsay from some unnamed sources?

Doesn't sound like proof to me.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Wreckum, the framework is in place to remove Congress from all decision making processes in the US. Please see this article for further information. The Bush administration has been probing the effectiveness of executive orders, signing statements, and executive "privilege" since they first entered office. They have acted in defiance of Congressional oversight which you yourself acknowledged earlier. So, if they are not subject to Congressional Oversight and have the power to declare a national emergency almost at whim, how would we be protected from being integrated into a NAU by Congress? Only the people have the ability to stop this and unfortunately, a "security crisis" in the US will numb the masses sufficiently to negate any large resistance. People are scared to death of the "big bad terrorists" that are coming to get us. How this administration convinced an entire nation that a few people living in caves represented a threat to our national security and sovereignty is still a little fuzzy to me. Somehow a couple building having planes crashed into them by foreigners lead to the notion that we need to spy on our own citizens and suspend their rights on a whim to keep the boogeyman from coming to get us. Wake up or it will be too late. Or, if you do not want to wake up, at least file away the "crazy people's" rantings for amusement at a later date. Hell, when your siting in your house one night after the next "terrorist" attack watching the news telling you not to leave your house before 7 AM as a curfew is in effect to round up local "terrorists," think about us crazies who won't be here any more to amuse you with our tin foil hat theories.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

I'm sorry, but did you know that in order to have war, congress has to approve it? It didn't stop the bush administration and neither will this.

That's a common misconception.

The SCOTUS has long rules that that's not the case. Not a recent case (under any of GWB's appointees), but long ago.

Otherwise, and in addition to the above, the President has a Constitutional duty to defend the US. No Congressional authority is required to excercise that duty. This duty, and the authority that comes with it, allows him free use of the military to combat threats to the US such as terrorism. Congress, IMO, really can't officially declare war on "terroists". They have no official state/country. But they can, and have in the days following 9/11, grant extra powers to the Pres as the Constitution provides.

Fern

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I?ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution ?a goddamned piece of paper.?

So, the words of a couple left-wing extremist sites, and hearsay from some unnamed sources?

Doesn't sound like proof to me.

The original source (capitalhillblue) retracted the story. Apparently that's not good enough for Dave 🙂

 

[GeezerMan]

Here is a good report on the NAU plan. It's on the left of the web page, click on Free PDF of NAU Issue. Yeah, I know, it's the John Birch Society, so feel free to bash the source and ignore whatever evidence they present.
Link

The link PC Surgeon had earlier to the Frontline program is excellent. It shows the power grab of the executive. Not just the Bush executive orders,
but "signing statements" where he signs a law, but puts a clause in there that basically says the executive reserves the right not to follow it.

"Bush has used signing statements to challenge more than 800 laws that place limits or requirements on the executive branch, saying they intrude on his constitutional powers. By contrast, all previous presidents challenged a combined total of about 600 laws."

Wow, Bush alone has issued over 800 signing statements, and ALL previous presidents have issued a total of 600. I think it's over 1000 now according to the Frontline article



Signing Statements

 

[Theb]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I'm sorry, but did you know that in order to have war, congress has to approve it? It didn't stop the bush administration and neither will this.

No. The President has the executive authority to send troops anywhere for a 90 day period. Without Congressional approval.

And I hate to break it to you, but Congress did approve "this war". Perhaps you should peruse History a bit more.

Ron Paul said the war is illegal. Ron Paul is always right. Ron Paul farts rainbows.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Wreckem
What everyone fails to see here, its not the GOP and Republicans that are giving illegals rights, its the democrats.

Both parties are culpable, and have been for decades.

It's disgusting.

Well, to be fair, the GOP hasnt really rolled out the red carpet like the Dems have done in California and New York. They have just turned a blind eye to the problem, where as the dems have been giving them rights like, financial aid and drivers licenses.

And Republicans have been giving them....JOBS.

 

[Theb]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Per the Republican President "It's just a god damned piece of paper".

Come on man, Bush isn't exactly savvy but even he wouldn't be stupid enough to say something like that in front of that group and besides republicans love the constitution, they think it says that Christianity is our official religion.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: GeezerMan
Here is a good report on the NAU plan. It's on the left of the web page, click on Free PDF of NAU Issue. Yeah, I know, it's the John Birch Society, so feel free to bash the source and ignore whatever evidence they present.
Link

The link PC Surgeon had earlier to the Frontline program is excellent. It shows the power grab of the executive. Not just the Bush executive orders,
but "signing statements" where he signs a law, but puts a clause in there that basically says the executive reserves the right not to follow it.

"Bush has used signing statements to challenge more than 800 laws that place limits or requirements on the executive branch, saying they intrude on his constitutional powers. By contrast, all previous presidents challenged a combined total of about 600 laws."

Wow, Bush alone has issued over 800 signing statements, and ALL previous presidents have issued a total of 600. I think it's over 1000 now according to the Frontline article



Signing Statements

Wreckage doesn't want to watch that video because then he would have to concede that congress couldn't stop "executive orders" if they wanted to.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Theb
Ron Paul farts rainbows.

:laugh:

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I'd be willing to give them California... after all, they've pretty much taken it already. 😀

Now, back to reality... this would never happen.

/thread

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I remember talking to people about the N.A.U (North American Union) and the "Amero" (the proposed currency) a few weeks back. Some used the term "tin foil hat wearers" to those that believed it. Well I now invite you to see proof. The active proof being the borders being blurred, illegals can get an ID in new york and coming over in droves. You not only need integration of people to make this happen, but you also need currency to fall in line with each other. The more the three country's blur the lines in nationality and currency, the easier it will be to create one government.

Vincente Fox states about the Amero being "long term". Obviously bush and Fox discussed it. This shows intent of the bush administration undermining American citizens personal liberty in the name of money. The Constitution of the U.S. will be no more, instead profits and power will dictate your life.

http://video.google.com/videop...&type=search&plindex=5

Uh.... See the problem with all this is the EXECUTIVE HAS NO POWER TO DO THAT.

It has to be done by Congress.

Treaties have to ratified by Congress.

Currency is covered in the constitution, and the printing of currency falls under Congress. Some may say the Fed, but if Congress wanted to tomorrow, they could do away with the Fed. Congress has the ultimate control over currency. There will be no "amero".

And technically something along these lines(North American Union) would need a constitutional amendment, and ratified by the States and Congress. The President cannot do sh!t to move something like this forward.

Learn some US Government before you spout off nonsense. Thats why people said it was tin foil hat paranoia.

Thank you for saving me the time to write nearly the exact same response.

/thread

Neither of you have any idea what bush and his cohorts have done. How they have taken "executive power" beyond the reach of congress. Have you seen the Cheney's Law video? Doesn't matter this is a "/thread" to you, so don't bother posting.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

I'm sorry, but did you know that in order to have war, congress has to approve it? It didn't stop the bush administration and neither will this.

That's a common misconception.

The SCOTUS has long rules that that's not the case. Not a recent case (under any of GWB's appointees), but long ago.

Otherwise, and in addition to the above, the President has a Constitutional duty to defend the US. No Congressional authority is required to excercise that duty. This duty, and the authority that comes with it, allows him free use of the military to combat threats to the US such as terrorism. Congress, IMO, really can't officially declare war on "terroists". They have no official state/country. But they can, and have in the days following 9/11, grant extra powers to the Pres as the Constitution provides.

Fern

I'll give you the same answer as I did the other guy.

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon


Great. So instead of calling it "war" they call it "military action". Excuse me, but you can name it "fruit loops" if you want, it still doesn't change what it is, its war, plain and simple. I think (if it is not already this way) that if "military action" was used, that after 30 days, congress would have to approve it as war. Occupation of foreign nations for 30 days or longer should be declared war. Otherwise its just psychological word play and I am personally insulted that the "executive branch" or their "congressional cohorts" think we are too stupid to notice.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Wreckum, the framework is in place to remove Congress from all decision making processes in the US. Please see this article for further information. The Bush administration has been probing the effectiveness of executive orders, signing statements, and executive "privilege" since they first entered office. They have acted in defiance of Congressional oversight which you yourself acknowledged earlier. So, if they are not subject to Congressional Oversight and have the power to declare a national emergency almost at whim, how would we be protected from being integrated into a NAU by Congress? Only the people have the ability to stop this and unfortunately, a "security crisis" in the US will numb the masses sufficiently to negate any large resistance. People are scared to death of the "big bad terrorists" that are coming to get us. How this administration convinced an entire nation that a few people living in caves represented a threat to our national security and sovereignty is still a little fuzzy to me. Somehow a couple building having planes crashed into them by foreigners lead to the notion that we need to spy on our own citizens and suspend their rights on a whim to keep the boogeyman from coming to get us. Wake up or it will be too late. Or, if you do not want to wake up, at least file away the "crazy people's" rantings for amusement at a later date. Hell, when your siting in your house one night after the next "terrorist" attack watching the news telling you not to leave your house before 7 AM as a curfew is in effect to round up local "terrorists," think about us crazies who won't be here any more to amuse you with our tin foil hat theories.

That article is chilling. Scary to think we have a president with this much power over a democracy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

That link takes me to this video😕

















:laugh:

 

[randym431]

U.S. Constitution? Will be a thing of the past.

Not if stupid Americans stop electing stupid presidents.

(edit)
Not if stupid Americans stop voting for stupid Presidents.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
That link takes me to this video😕
:laugh:

Nice, thanks for the free lesson. Now I know what's wrong, I was making mine the wrong way. 😱

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
That article is chilling. Scary to think we have a president with this much power over a democracy.

"Cheney's Law" is clearly a biased, partisan opinion series aimed at portraying Dick Cheney as a Dictator, and Bush his willing accomplice.

Cheney believes in a strong, unified executive - I disagree, with one notable exception. Wartime. Here, my view of executive power is in line with Cheney.

The truth is that the Constitution grants the President an enormous amount of power during wartime, and rightly so.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
That article is chilling. Scary to think we have a president with this much power over a democracy.

"Cheney's Law" is clearly a biased, partisan opinion series aimed at portraying Dick Cheney as a Dictator, and Bush his willing accomplice.

Cheney believes in a strong, unified executive - I disagree, with one notable exception. Wartime. Here, my view of executive power is in line with Cheney.

The truth is that the Constitution grants the President an enormous amount of power during wartime, and rightly so.

Define wartime. This is clearly where it gets muddled. Is it war that is called "military action"? Or war declared by congress?

And if it's so "biased, partisan opinion series", I challenge you to find its faults/lies and show a slant toward favoring one camp over another. If you cannot find proof I ask you not to contribute your slanted views to this thread again. Instead, come back with a non partisan and open mind; that not all things revolve around partisanship.