Federal Courts Refuse To Acknowledge King Bush’s Sovereignty
Bush allegedly was heard shouting at the white house by several Republican Congressional leaders during a meeting in the Oval Office to meet about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act to “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
Now of course conservatives will say that this is a made up story, that the president would never say something like this and that he doesn’t hold this view, but I would respond back to those people, "what has Dubya done to show that this statement isn’t an accurate reflection of how he feels out civil rights of Americans?"
Bush responded to a federal judge declaring Bush’s wiretapping program was unconstitutional with "critics of the program do not understand the nature of the world in which we live."
Isn’t that convenient?
I don’t think Bush was talking about terrorism. I think he is talking about himself and his monarchy.
I think Bush thinks he is king.
Bush has basically been telling the American people every chance he can that prior to 9/11 America could afford a President, but after 9/11 we need a king. The nature of the world changed that day and now a President isn’t strong enough.
This is America, we have a constitution. Bush must work within that constitution.
You aren’t a patriot by insisting that Dubya doesn’t have to work within the constitution you are a serf.
If Dubya can’t protect us by working within our constitution then he isn’t qualified for this job.
Why would I say that?
Well evidently he can’t do what every other president before him managed to do.
Despite what Bush seems to believe, the constitution isn’t just a piece of paper it is more than that, its the foundation of who we are.
Bush wants to be king. He wants sovereignty. He thinks that by telling us that he is doing what he thinks is best for us this should be good enough for all of us.
Like something is wrong with you if you cannot recognize his unparallel wisdom.
"If al-Qaeda is calling in to the United States, we want to know why they're calling," Bush said.
No shit. I know why they’re calling. I don’t need a wiretap to tell you that. I need to wiretap to tell me what, when, where and how.
So if you want to wiretap Americans thenn take your lazy ass down to a court house and ask a judge to sign off on it. You can’t do warrantless wiretapping or warrantless anything in this country, at least not indefinitely.
You can’t hold people in prison indefinitely and have the arrogance to call them terrorists or criminals. To be a criminal you have to be guilty of a crime don’t you?
You can only call someone a criminal if they have been convicted of a crime in a court of law, not the court of public opinion.
You don’t have criminals sitting in Gitmo, not if they haven’t even been charged with a crime you don't.
Why is that so hard to understand?
If you are familiar with the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, you would know that although it requires you to get a federal judge to sign off on all domestic surveillance, you don’t need a judge to do so before you start your investigation. So it gives you the freedom start your investigation before you get permission from a judge.
Now what I suspect is the real reason that Dubya is so opposed to getting permission is because the Bush administration is watching every single Arab American in the continental United States and why he doesn’t want to get permission is because no self respecting Judge in America is going to sign off on 1.5 Americans of middle eastern decent being spied on for no other reason than just because they are Arabs.
So Bush’s entire argument that they don’t have time to obtain warrants from a secret court set up under FISA is not a lie.
They don’t have time to ask a judge to give them the warrants for 1.5 million Americans who this administration criminalized overnight.
This whole issue of getting permission annoys him because it serves as just another reminder that he isn’t king.
Its called checks and balances Mr. Bush.
The Judicial branch rules on the constitutionality of law, but they don’t make the law. Congress does that. The executive branch doesn’t make the law or interpret the law it enforces the law. That is the way things work around here.
Even the Federal judge that ruled on this case can see the same thing I can see.
"It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control," U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor wrote in a 43-page opinion. "... There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution."
We don’t have one of those here, a king that is.
We don’t want one of those here either.
And despite how close Bush might’ve come to scaring the American people into making him King, it didn’t happen.
He still can’t win an election without 49% of the American people voting against him.
The constitution might just be a piece of paper but its one that he probably needs to read.