Constitution - Nothing But a Piece of Paper?

This topic of the discussion is what attitude does the admnistration have toward the constitution. The Rightwing, Inc. would like to turn it into a discussion of personalities so as to avoid that issue. So, first a diversion of what the meaning of anonymous is, and now an attempt to divert this into a discussion of people's attitudes towards the Shrub.

The IVth Amendment to the Constitution reads, in its entirety:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I sumit that the Patriot Act has been used as an attempt to circumvent this amendment and its provisions. Specifically, the Patriot Act is used in an attempt to circument requirement for probable cause in securing warrants to search and seize. Although i am no great admirer of Gonzales, i consider that Ashcroft was much more dangerous and dismissive of civil rights. That by no means, however, means that people's right to be secure in their persons, papers and effects are any more safe with the current AG than was the case when Ashcroft was AG--in his case, it appears he thought the abbreviation meant Assistant God.

DrewDad wrote:

I'm pretty sure he (and we) understood your point Tico; just as I'm pretty sure that he (and we) think your point is absurd, ridiculous, and unworthy of being taken seriously.

That may be the case (although I doubt it), but even if it is it doesn't explain why he misstated it in the post I was replying to.

"curveball" is a verifiable source. Officials know whom the person is and have the ability to question as needed. "unnamed sources" are not verifiable, nor are they reliable.

Quote:

Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'

By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 9, 2005, 07:53

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.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

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."

...Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."

Link to Article

Is the Constitution a living document, intended to change with the time? Does it grant rights? Serve as a base for determining what is legal or illegal?

Or, is it just a goddamned piece of paper?

Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'

By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 9, 2005, 07:53

. . .


“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States. . . .

Is the Constitution a living document, intended to change with the time? Does it grant rights? Serve as a base for determining what is legal or illegal?

Or, is it just a goddamned piece of paper?

Huh.

Statements like that undermine the moral of the military who have sworn to uphold the Constitution.

Maybe they can just quit and come home now.

Bush has been known to speak before he thinks.

Ticomaya wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

I'm pretty sure he (and we) understood your point Tico; just as I'm pretty sure that he (and we) think your point is absurd, ridiculous, and unworthy of being taken seriously.

That may be the case (although I doubt it), but even if it is it doesn't explain why he misstated it in the post I was replying to.

Your defense of McG's absurd point deserved a satirical riposte.

Let me restate McG's point and we can see if you still agree with it.

Quote:

"curveball" is a verifiable source. Officials know whom the person is and have the ability to question as needed. "unnamed sources" are not verifiable, nor are they reliable.

The "unamed sources" are verifiable. The person that used them knows who they are and has the ability to question as needed. Sources that use an alias are not verifiable nor are they reliable.

The validity of the argument doesn't change from McG's statement to mine. Both use sources that I can't question or verify. In both cases I am relying on those that did question the unnamed source. "Curveball" was of unknown reliability and not verifiable. The "unnamed sources" are of unknown reliability and not verifiable. There really isn't much difference between the two.

The one difference I can see is that we KNOW that "curveball" wasn't considered reliable by those that questioned him. We don't have much information about those questioned by Mr. Thompson. It is suspect because it appears Thompson doesn't have an editor but we can't say one way or the other at this point in time.

Is the Constitution a living document, intended to change with the time? Does it grant rights? Serve as a base for determining what is legal or illegal?

Or, is it just a goddamned piece of paper?

The constitution is the foundation by which our country stands. At no time has the administration attempted to undermine that foundation.

Ticomaya wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

I'm pretty sure he (and we) understood your point Tico; just as I'm pretty sure that he (and we) think your point is absurd, ridiculous, and unworthy of being taken seriously.

That may be the case (although I doubt it), but even if it is it doesn't explain why he misstated it in the post I was replying to.

Your defense of McG's absurd point deserved a satirical riposte.

Let me restate McG's point and we can see if you still agree with it.

Quote:

"curveball" is a verifiable source. Officials know whom the person is and have the ability to question as needed. "unnamed sources" are not verifiable, nor are they reliable.

The "unamed sources" are verifiable. The person that used them knows who they are and has the ability to question as needed.

Sources that use an alias are not verifiable nor are they reliable.

The validity of the argument doesn't change from McG's statement to mine. Both use sources that I can't question or verify. In both cases I am relying on those that did question the unnamed source. "Curveball" was of unknown reliability and not verifiable. The "unnamed sources" are of unknown reliability and not verifiable.

There really isn't much difference between the two.

The one difference I can see is that we KNOW that "curveball" wasn't considered reliable by those that questioned him. We don't have much information about those questioned by Mr. Thompson. It is suspect because it appears Thompson doesn't have an editor but we can't say one way or the other at this point in time.

In the other case, you have Thompson asserting that members of the WH staff told him that the Shrub said these silly things, which is also what Thompson wanted to hear. In both cases, we have only a single, unverified source--in the first case, the WH, in the second case, Thompson.

New Rule: To save the rest of us from the long post wars, Parados and Tico will each be limited to one argument and one rebuttal when addressing the other, per thread. All in favor?

You're not grading papers, maestro. Let it go. For the love of humanity, let it go.

Is the Constitution a living document, intended to change with the time? Does it grant rights? Serve as a base for determining what is legal or illegal?

Or, is it just a goddamned piece of paper?

For you to claim that "unnamed sources" are verifiable, but "sources that use an alias" are not, defies logic. Care to explain your thought process?

The validity of the argument doesn't change from McG's statement to mine.

Is the Constitution a living document, intended to change with the time? Does it grant rights? Serve as a base for determining what is legal or illegal?

Or, is it just a goddamned piece of paper?