Pardon me for saying so but here is no way Bush ever said that about the Constitution.
Posted By: Lila on 2006-05-12
In Reply to: This is my problem, Democrat. - PK
No way.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Bush is trying to pardon himself - link included
If this is not enough to get you going I don't know what is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RwoFcLgxA0
King Bush thumbs his nose at the Constitution...again
House: Did President knowingly sign law that didn't pass?
RAW STORY
Published: Wednesday March 15, 2006
Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) has alleged in a letter to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that President Bush signed a version of the Budget Reconciliation Act that, in effect, did not pass the House of Representatives.
Further, Waxman says there is reason to believe that the Speaker of the House called President Bush before he signed the law, and alerted him that the version he was about to sign differed from the one that actually passed the House. If true, this would put the President in willful violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The full text of the letter follows:
March 15, 2006
The Honorable Andrew Card
Chief of Staff
The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. Card:
On February 8, 2006, President Bush signed into law a version of the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 that was different in substance from the version that passed the U.S. House of Representatives. Legal scholars have advised me that the substantive differences between the versions - which involve $2 billion in federal spending - mean that this bill did not meet the fundamental constitutional requirement that both Houses of Congress must pass any legislation signed into law by the President.
I am writing to learn what the President and his staff knew about this constitutional defect at the time the President signed the legislation.
Detailed background about the legislation and its constitutional defects are contained in a letter I sent last month to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, which I have enclosed with this letter.[1] In summary, the House-passed version of the legislation required the Medicare program to lease durable medical equipment, such as wheelchairs, for seniors and other beneficiaries for up to 36 months, while the version of the legislation signed by the President limited the duration of these leases to just 13 months. As the Congressional Budget Office reported, this seemingly small change from 36 months to 13 months has a disproportionately large budgetary impact, cutting Medicare outlays by $2 billion over the next five years.[2]
I understand that a call was made to the White House before the legislation was signed by the President advising the White House of the differences between the bills and seeking advice about how to proceed. My understanding is that the call was made either by the Speaker of the House to the President or by the senior staff of the Speaker to the senior staff of the President.
I would like to know whether my understanding is correct. If it is, the implications are serious.
The Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that before a bill can become law, it must be passed by both Houses of Congress.[3] When the President took the oath of office, he swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, which includes the Presentment Clause. If the President signed the Reconciliation Act knowing its constitutional infirmity, he would in effect be placing himself above the Constitution.
I do not raise this issue lightly. Given the gravity of the matter and the unusual circumstances surrounding the Reconciliation Act, Congress and the public need a straightforward explanation of what the President and his staff knew on February 8, when the legislation was signed into law.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member
Enclosure
[1] See Letter from Rep. Henry A. Waxman to Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Feb. 14, 2006).
[2] See Letter from CBO Acting Director Donald Marron to Rep. John M. Spratt, Jr. (Feb. 13, 2006).
[3] U.S. Constitution, Article I, � 7.
Pardon me.
x
beg your pardon?
It is you who do not know Kyoto and the harmful effects..PETA, great organization. I have belonged to it for years. Why, your buddy, Blair..you know Bush's socialist friend, he thinks Kyoto is the right thing..so does Russia..and so many other enlightened countries and states of the USA..It is just Bush and his dimwitted mind that cant grasp the whole picture..of anything.
Pardon me, but...
You don't know who I am and for the record, I have never posted anything rude or confrontational. I like to debate, but if you will re-read what you just posted above, you will see who is rude and confrontational. It's you. I don't let politics cloud my humanity. I don't hate liberals, I don't disqualify people from my life just because we have differeing political viewpoints. I have many liberal friends and co-workers and family members. Their politics don't preclude them from my friendship or love. Some liberals are hateful, and so are some conservatives. However, you feel that ALL convervatives are hateful spiteful pieces of trash that are not worthy of even a conversation with you. That is what I meant by going around the bend. When it takes over your life to that point, you've lost your grip. I really hope you have a nice day, and I don't mean that sarcastically.
I beg your pardon. sm
The rules apply to both boards. I did not happen to visit this board at the same time. I have consistently in the past posted on both boards. I don't appreciate the insinuation that I favor either board.
Pardon me. sm
I realize now that you were using sarcasm. Sorry. It was so thinly veiled behind silliness.
Pardon me if saying ...
*It was like trying to talk to my mother who had a personality disorder...* YOU said it, I didn't, and you were bashing me and using your mother's illness to do it...YOU brought it up, I didn't, and why on earth would you do that? Why on earth would you post your former best friend is a schizophrenic, on a politics board? YOU did the disservice. YOU did the bashing, and YOU brought up the mental illness. Good grief. Get a grip!!
Pardon me, but there was hardly
any crossing the party lines from 2001 to 2006 when the repugnants soared the debt, the Terri Schiavo case was just insane and anti-constitutional, people suffering in the aftermath of Katrina, and on and on. So much for bipartisanship on the Repugnants side!
I beg your pardon, but as far as what
I have heard, President Obama has been tied up with celebrating Easter and naming the new WH puppy this weekend. He had little to nothing to do with freeing this man!
Pardon ME?! Who ever said I was a conservative? sm
Why would you assume so very much. There were a lot of posts pro and con by veterans. The post I quoted was one that struck me because I was born and raised in Oklahoma and it was a soldier from Oklahoma. My goodness, what a huge brouhaha over one simple little post. Well, I certainly won't post here again.
Pardon me, but this is ABSURD! sm
Not only absurd, but you have ASSUMED that I am a Christian. How dare you? I mean, really! You make a lot of assumptions, accused me above of saying things I did not say and then have the NERVE to say this. News flash, gt. ALL of the MSM comment and prophecy about Israel HOURLY and a lot of them are not Jewish. Scholars who study Israel are not all Jewish. I think this is the most bizarre thing I have ever read.
Pardon me but that's not quite true
Not really bashing on the con board. Just folks calling others yucky and then being sarcastically and cruelly chided because that's the best they can do as far as the nasty insults. What started it was someone calling it the Brunson board. Excuse me, but doesn't really qualify as a nasty insult. Check it out.
Pardon me if I do not think this is a victory for anyone. nm
Pardon me, Teddy....
but just because someone posts here what they do, does not mean they do it. And if I do not choose to blow my own horn and brag about all the wonderful things I do, please do not interpret that to mean that I do not do something. I am retired and therefore can no longer serve, that does not mean I have never served or if I was able to serve I would not be right there. Please do not preach to me about involvement. And please to answer my question. Why do you not take this peacenik talk to the people who threaten the peace? Unless of course you are a terrorist apologist who thinks the United States is the big bad wolf who causes all the problems. If you believe that, then you should be on the first plane out.
Last time I looked, I and no other American had flown a plane into a building and killed 3000 people in one day. Last time I looked, I or any other American had not bombed embassies, bombed the Cole, downed the plane over Lockerbie, bombed the World Trade Center the first time...you are sooo typical of the angry liberal...and so typical...*my boyfriend says* *Michael Moore says* *Lurker says* Have you ever, my friend, had an independent thought while your butt is sitting there comfy in in YOUR chair??
And please to do the research...there are a great many in Congress who have children serving right now. I know people personally who are serving right now or have children serving right now. You might want to jump back down off that high horse and check out your rancid statements.
As long as we are on butts...you make mine hurt.
Have a good day!!
Pardon me for disrespecting
x
pardon me but, what are you talking about? what has that to do with
this particular post? We get it you are in love with SP, we hear it loud and clear, but, again, what has that got to do with the interview where someone posted perfectly legit post?
Pardon my faux pas........... sm
that belongs in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
But it makes my argument no less valid.
Pardon the typo in the post above....
meant to say $120K a year, not $120 a year...sigh LONG DAY...lol
Well pardon me for believing what the Center for....
Palestinian Research says on their website. You saying they are liars?
I did not say anything about the Republican organization being apolitical. I said the Palestinian organization you cite state on their website that they are APOLITICAL. Perhaps you should call them on it?
I did not say Obama was a Jew hater. Jesse Jackson said he was. I did not twist Barack Obama's arm and force him to go to a gathering for someone who hates Jews, be close personal friends with someone who hates Jews, and want to sit down and talk with no pre-requisites to a man who has called for the annhilation of Israel. He did that all on his own. Now common sense would tell you "if the winds turn ugly he would fall on the side of Muslims..." Look up THAT quote why don't you. Then it appears to me that his sympathies are NOT with Israel or the Jewish people.
As to what happened at the farewall dinner...I did read the transcript on the LA Times site. It does say that he praised and toasted the man. If that is all that is there, release the tape. Releasing the tape DOES NOT identify the source. That is an excuse. If it was the goods on McCain, every news outlet on the face of the planet would be hammering the LA Times for the tape. They sure didn't mind demanding that the source who outed Plame be revealed did they?
They only trot out "ethics" when it suits them to do so.
I don't think I am the only one in need of help intrepreting...got a mirror handy?
No, he didn't pardon them..... he commuted
@@
Pardon me. Are you saying the rules are not enforced equally? sm
I asked for an example, i.e., a specific post. Which post is it specifically. I do not have time to read every post on this board. Also, you said insults. I asked for examples of that. Again, you did not provide any. I am not quite sure how I am to do something about anything when you are not cooperating. I have, in the past, posted equally on both boards regarding sticking to the boards you belong on. However, I can't assume that simply because someone disagrees with your point of view, that they are of a certain political persuasian. That would be, indeed, labeling and unfair on my part. I will post another reminder about which board to stay on, but I don't appreciate your insinuation that there is favoritism here. As the board owner has said before, if this board is not to your liking, you certainly have options.
Well pardon me, but how can you discuss the present without a history of sm
what shaped it? It isn't possible.
Pardon the interruption, but Puerto Rico
Is not a foreign country. It is part of the U.S. They even vote in our elections. Not trying to be nit-picky, but just in the last week or 2 I've heard SO many people (including clients) talking about so and so immigrating from Puerto Rico. That's like saying someone immigrated from Hawaii to Wyoming. Sorry...little niggle in my brain that just had to be scratched. }}sigh{{ much better
Well....pardon me if I want to separate sour grapes...
from the truth. Verifying facts is not critiquing. I do it because I want to know the truth. Somehow it loses its punch when she lists: "She has hated me since 1992." lol.
pardon my missing comma (blush)
xx
pardon me, racquet - well, I guess it can be spelled both ways
x
Pardon me, but I couldn't care less if you approve of my opinion or my humor
This is the liberal board. It's very interesting that when one of you supposedly disappears, another shows up instantly to take the first one's place.
If you are truly interested in discussing this issue, then please tell me the points with which you disagree rather than rant and rave with personal attacks on my opinion and/or sense of humor.
throwing himself on the floor kicking because Scooter didn't get his pardon.......
nm
Well, actually, the constitution says war
Congress did NOT declare war.....Bush started a war but did not declare war...He got around that by saying we were going in because of other things and would be out quickly but, of course, it was a war and we are definitely not out. Not one candidate has the guts to say they would be pulled immediately except for Ron Paul.
The constitution has very little to do with it,
.
Constitution? (sm)
Isn't that the huge red, white and blue monster that Bush slayed with his shining Patriot Act sword? I thought it was dead.
1. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution
makes treaties into which the U.S. has entered the supreme Law of the Land. The United States is a signatory to the U.N. Charter, and under the UN Charter, there is no clear legal authority for war on Iraq. Accordingly, if the war violates international law then it also thereby violates U.S. law.
2. While the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, Congress alone has the power to declare war.
Oh, pul-eeeze. The Constitution says nothing about it
basically no rights at all.
Okay, so let's say you, as a pro-lifer-person, talk with some woman into having a child she didn't plan, doesn't want, can't afford, will get her kicked out of her house, or whatever. So she has it. Then what? Do you just go on your merry way forever after, or are you prepared to take some responsibility for having meddled in this hypothetical woman's private affairs, and help to raise, get medical care for, and educate this child?
74.19% McCain, 70.97 with the Constitution....
party candidate. In the single digits with Obama.
You think our Constitution's adherence
is grasping at straws? I think you lost your grasp on reality. If he has nothing to hide, what's the big deal? See, this is what people do when they don't want to own up to something, is bury it in our complicated justice system.
Besides, the attorney who filed this lawsuit is a lifelong DEMOCRAT. Hard to swallow, I know, but follow it with some of your Obama Koolaid and it'll all feel better.
What a dimwit...the constitution has EVERYTHING
least it did until freeloaders and jackasses got ahold of it and have turned it into a joke almost.
Gun Rights Per the Constitution
I posted this, but didn't see it, so I'm posting it again.
Gun Rights per the Constitution [2008-10-29]
Subject: Gun Rights per the Constitution Can anyone HONESTLY condone this? I'd also like to know who told him he can decide who to take money from and give to another. For those of you making $50K (for example), don't get ticked when possibly half of it goes to an MT who makes $25. That's his plan, and don't try to deny it. Once you go down this road it's basically impossible to turn back. Look at Cuba and Venezuela, for examples. http://www.rense.com/general83/obmaa.htm They will be trying to come for our guns
There's always the Constitution Party....sm
Chuck Baldwin is their candidate. I really like his platform as he is very conservative and has some really good ideas. Unfortunately, I doubt there is much chance he will win, but if feeling good about your vote is important to you, then check him out.
http://www.baldwin08.com/
You think the constitution should be amended?????
That is treason. You have no right to change our constitution.
You think it's logic to change it just so you get what you want?
You need to let it go.
Read the Constitution lately?
Do you embody the philosophy and beliefs of every single person you have ever encountered in your life time? I spent 50 years of my life listening to a staunch Goldwater republican preach her sermons to me, sometimes on a daily basis. This was my own mother. Not an ounce of it rubbed off on me.
It is not shocking or disturbing to me in the least that Rev Wright, who grew up in the midst of the 60s turmoil, embraces this world view. My understanding of Obama's relation to him and to the community outreach programs of Trinity Church is different than yours. I find Rev Wright's "extremism" no different than the extremism that comes pouring out of the evangelical Christian Right. If they are to be tolerated, then so is he. It's called inclusion and it is what America aspires toward.
Throughout his lifetime, Obama has demonstrated the capacity to LISTEN to opposing viewpoints, analyze them and put them into proper perspective. This is a quality that I admire in a candidate who seeks to bring unity among us. The first step toward accomplishing that is the ability to examine ALL viewpoints, to identify common threads that each share with one another, create policy on centrist positions that involve compromise on the part of the exteme factions and to promote those policies for the common good of all Americans. That is what putting country first is REALLY all about.
Good luck will selling that idea that the notion of equality for all is a socialist precept.
Since the Constitution does not state
That to be POTUS the parents of a US born child also has to be US born themselves....then that's what I mean. Maybe you should study up on the Constitution. It was written for a reason.
Another trouncing of the Constitution? sm
It seems this will never end. I'm beginning to think, in light of this election and everything surrounding it, that Bush was right......"It's just a piece of paper."
Barack Obama has appointed Sen. Hillary Clinton has secretary of state, an appointment America's Founding Fathers forbade in the U.S. Constitution.
The constitutional quandary arises from a clause that forbids members of the Senate from being appointed to civil office, such as the secretary of state, if the "emoluments," or salary and benefits, of the office were increased during the senator's term.
The second clause of Article 1, Section 6, of the Constitution reads, "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."
DurClinton's current term in the Senate, the salary for Cabinet officers was increased from $186,600 to $191,300. Since the salary is scheduled to again be raised in January 2009, not only Clinton but all sitting Senate members could be considered constitutionally ineligible to serve in Obama's Cabinet.
For more info........ http://wnd.com:80/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82374
I have to wonder if you were so upset about the constitution (sm)
while Bush was butchering it over at least the last 4 years.
Demise of the USA and Constitution?...
OK ... maybe I've not been paying enough attention ... so I was a bit unaware when I got this info in my email inbox last week ...
I think it's worth some attention ... tho I can't pretend to know all the answers ...
I've VERY concerned about the concept, and the "predictions" ...
Here's the message:
IT'S ALREADY STARTED FOLKS..BE AWARE OF WHAT IS GOING ON....
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2433/text
SENATE BILL S. 2433 THE GLOBAL POVERTY ACT
According to David Bossie, President of the group 'Citizens United for American Sovereignty', based out of Merrifield Virginia , website: http://www.citizensunited.org/
the above- mentioned Senate Bill (S. 2433) is a piece of legislation in the works that all Americans need to know about and know now!
This bill, sponsored by none other than Sen. Barack Obama, with the backing of Joe Biden on the Foreign Relations Committee, and liberal democrats in Congress, is nothing short of a massive giveaway of American wealth around the world, and a betrayal of the public trust, because, if passed, this bill would give over many aspects of our sovereignty to the United Nations.
The noble sounding name of this bill, 'The Global Poverty Act' is actually a Global Tax, payable to the United Nations, that will be required of all American taxpayers. If passed in the Senate, the House has already passed it, this bill would require the U.S. to increase our foreign aid by $65 BILLION per year, or $845 BILLION over the next 13 years! That's on top of the billions of dollars in foreign aid we already pay out!
In addition to the economic burdens this potential law would place on our precarious economy, the bill, if passed in the Senate, would also endanger our constitutionally protected rights and freedoms by obligating us to meet certain United Nations mandates.
According to Senator Obama, we should establish these United Nations' goals as benchmarks for U.S. spending. What are they?
n The creation of a U.N. International Criminal Court having the power to try and convict American citizens and soldiers without any protection from the U.S. Constitution.
n A standing United Nations Army forcing U.S. soldiers to serve under U.N. command.
n A Gun Ban on all small arms and light weapons --which would repeal our Second Amendment right to bear arms.
n The ratification of the ' Kyoto ' global warming treaty and numerous other anti-American measures.
Recently, the Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Relations (where Sen. Joe Biden sits) approved this plan by a voice vote without any discussion! Why all the secrecy? If Senators Obama and Biden are so proud of this legislation, then why don't they bring it out into the light of day and let the American people have a look at it instead of hiding it behind closed doors and sneaking it through Congress for late night votes.
It may be only a matter of time before this dangerous legislation reaches a floor vote in the full body of the Senate.
Please write or call, email your representatives, the White House, the media, or anyone you think will listen, and express your opinions regarding this Global Tax giveaway and betrayal of the American people at a time when our nation and our people are already heavily burdened with the threats to our freedoms and economic prosperity.
No, the "hatched job" on the constitution is already
nm
The constitution will most likely be changed for him.
nm
Yawn. The constitution is and always has been
The founding fathers set it up that way. That's why we have provisions for amendments...a basic concept that seems to escape you. While you are on that soap box about free speech, please explain to me why Obama's comments about H, OR and RL do not qualify without his being subjected to all this terminal self-righteous indignation? Arguments based on false premises do not merit further comment.
New preable to the Constitution
This is probably the best e-mail I've seen in a long, long time. The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA. This guy should run for President one day...
'We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.
ARTICLE I:
You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
ARTICLE II:
You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.
ARTICLE III:
You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
ARTICLE IV:
You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.
ARTICLE V:
You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're
just not interested in public health care.
ARTICLE VI:
You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair
ARTICLE VII:
You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.
ARTICLE VIII:
You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.
ARTICLE IX:
You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
ARTICLE X:
This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you came from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!
ARTICLE XI:
You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!
It's about time common sense is allowed to flourish. Sensible people of the United States must speak out because if you do not, who will?
But the bible is not the same as the constitution
But the bible is not the same as the constitution
Nobody is stopping you from living my biblical precepts. And nowhere have I heard of any attempt to force churches to perform marriage ceremonies (interesting word- ceremony, but I degress). But I was under the impression that one of the critical differences between the USA and almost any Middle Eastern country is that we base our laws on civil liberties rather than letting religion be our guide. There are a lot of things mentioned in the bible forbids that we routinely do- I can't tell you when I last had the sabbath off, nor can I tell you when I last got to stone a harlot. My then widowed father did not step in to marry my aunt when her husband died and zoning laws prevent me from keeping a fattened calf in the garage.
My religious beliefs may not be in keeping with your religious beliefs, and neither one of us should be expected to live our life according to the other's.
|
