Replies

No ... but I find it ironic that you, of all people, are demanding that we follow the dictates of organizations you have called disfunctional countless times over the years, in order to make a point about Bush.

However dysfunctional the SCOTUS and the Congress may be, the President of the United States is the chief executive. As such, he is bound to faithfully uphold the laws of the United States, and to protect the constitution.

If the president should choose to ignore laws that he does not wish to comply with, rather than openly challenging those laws within the framework of the constitution.... then the rule of law is DEAD.

We may as well simply declare it so now, and be done with it.

I'm sorry my friend, but there is no emergency grave enough, and no hobgoblin scary enough, to rationalize the destruction of the constitutional bounds of government, in order to save America. America is not simply a collection of loosely associated people trying to make ends meet. It is DEFINED by the constitutional charter which establishes it. Generations of presidents and congressmen and judges have already soaked the damned thing in gasoline, and now your boy is waving a torch back and forth over it (to keep the terrorists at bay of course)

Quite frankly, I'm astonished to witness the demise of all that America was. And saddened to my very core that it came about as a result of the efforts of a foreign enemy.

And I really didn't think it would happen this fast... and to the cheers of the unwary.

If the president should choose to ignore laws that he does not wish to comply with, rather than openly challenging those laws within the framework of the constitution.... then the rule of law is DEAD.

So you would disagree, then, with a president refusing to enforce a law inherited from his predicessor that both he and you found to be blatantly unconstitutional?

Are you kidding? The stage was set with the WOD, which has been used as the rationale for abandoning much of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights. We already had legalized indefinite detention, roadblocks, random searches, seizure of private property without findings of guilt of a crime, guilt by association (conspiracy), ex-parte hearings resulting in the complete loss of second amendment rights in divorce cases, and a host of other unconstitutional horrors that breath through our "living' Constitution. All through the Clinton administration, I read thousands of hysterical posts about his secret plan to create a crisis and declare martial law and extend his term. Then, when GB gets elected, a crisis does occur and he proceeds to shread the Constitution on a scale unmatched since the civil war, but to a chorus of "well dones," rather than the former hysteria. It seems we have been aptly conditioned to accept the loss of freedom so long as we lose it to a good and effective leader, rather than a moral sloth.