Bush: A Democrat in Republican clothing?

Source: Washington Times ^ | 07/28/2002 | By Nicholas M. Horrock

[Lazamataz]

WASHINGTON, July 28 (UPI) -- When President Franklin Roosevelt, a member of one of the most wealthy and prominent families in America, was constructing the New Deal, which brought forth the Securities and Exchange Commission, strong banking regulation and labor protections, he was excoriated as a traitor to his class. Even one his own family members wrote him to complain.

[Texasforever]

It is unprincipled to take an oath of office to uphold the constitution, and then to sign a bill that you say violates the constitution. If the constitution doesn't matter, let's just say so.

You are getting into a corner. If Bush violated the constitution by letting this bill go to the USSC what have past presidents been guilty of by enforcing laws that they are on record as believing unconstitutional?

[Gelato]

Not even the Founding Fathers stuck by the so called " principles ", that so many here claim they had.

That may be, but at least they acknowledged and articulated the principle that our rights come from God. Without that principle, our society would never have come to be.

[nopardons]

And some of them, dear, thought that slavery was okay / a necessary evil / or PRAGMATICALLY gave in on that subject. The Bible doesn't find fault with slavery. No, don't even attempt to argue that it does. That the Chosen people were in bondage, was turned around, when they were slaves in Egypt; GOD didn't send another Moses, when they were again enslaved. Heck, HE even allows the Hebrews to have slaves of their own.

Slipping into refferences about GOD and what's in the Bible, isn't going to shore up your " principles " arguement. It's also the last ditch of scoundrels, dear. :-)

[Gelato]

You are getting into a corner. If Bush violated the constitution by letting this bill go to the USSC what have past presidents been guilty of by enforcing laws that they are on record as believing unconstitutional?

Yes, that's hardly a new revelation. And it's not something to strive for and accept, is it?

That's the point: we thought when we elected Bush that we were getting someone who actually would bring us back to honoring the constitution. If we're again supposed to accept the inevitable and believe that presidents are not expected to do what they are bound by law to do, then I guess none of the rest of us has to obey the law, either.

[nopardons]

When and exactly WHERE, speciffically, did candidate Bush claim that he was going to bring this nation " back " to honoring the Constitution ... in a manner that you think that " honoring the Constitution " means ? Please do NOT use the oath of office. Every president, from Washington on down, has said those words. They didn't all do so; not even the FFs.

[Gelato]

And some of them, dear, thought that slavery was okay / a necessary evil / or PRAGMATICALLY gave in on that subject.

And you hold that up as an example that pragmatism is good? Doesn't make sense to me.

Incidentally, didn't you just refute your own assertion that pragmatism is necessary in politics? For, if our Forefathers had stuck to the principle they articulated the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and our rights come from God, the mess of slavery would have ended sooner.

[Texasforever]

That's the point: we thought when we elected Bush that we were getting someone who actually would bring us back to honoring the constitution. If we're again supposed to accept the inevitable and believe that presidents are not expected to do what they are bound by law to do, then I guess none of the rest of us has to obey the law, either.

No, we elected a president NOT a dictator or some mythical “conservative” ideal. A president cannot single handedly wipe out every "unconstitutional" law on the books. He is sworn to UPHOLD those laws. He would be impeached if he did not. You are projecting an image of a president that can NEVER be achieved beyond a complete suspension of the very constitution that you want upheld. Your litmus test can never be achieved as long as there are those that do not share your definition of a real conservative, which includes approx 75% of the country. You are doomed to be disappointed in anyone that is elected because no one can meet the standard you have set.

[nopardons]

No, dear, not at all. THIS NATION, WOULD NOT EXIST , IF THOSE AGAINST SLAVERY HAD HELD OUT ! You really DO need to learn American history. It's a pity , that you know , at best, the Cliff's Notes version of what actually happened back then. Your fairy tale view / version, of what American history and the presidents were , is so skewed, that you can't tell the difference between what political reality has always been, and what you whish it had been / is. That's WHY you are having such a difficult time .

[Gelato]

When and exactly WHERE, speciffically, did candidate Bush claim that he was going to bring this nation " back " to honoring the Constitution

All I can say to that is: that explains a lot.

Every president, from Washington on down, has said those words. They didn't all do so; not even the FFs.

You might want to do a little more reading into this nation's history before coming to that conclusion. Indeed, the office of president has traditionally been so limited that, until Wilson came along, the president didn't even suggest legislation to Congress. Wilson bent the rules by arguing the standard Progressive line of a "living constitution," and then FDR took this as a license to revolutionize the presidency away from the constitution.

That's the kind of thing I thought we were all fighting against.

[nopardons]

Oh gee, and Lincoln's getting rid of Habeus Corpus and a few other such things, don't count ? It's late, and you are just so damned fixated on your own POV, that you have disavowed all else. I can't bring you up to speed; as it would be an utter waste of bandwidth.

BTW, your silly : " All I can say to that is : that explains a lot " , doesn't 1) refute anything that I have stated. 2)is just a throw away line, and is irrelivant to this debate. 3) is such a pointless non secquitor, that it defies reason. 4) ruins the rest of your stap at refutation. LOL

Thomas Jefferson did NOT even ask for a Congressional Declaration of War, against the Barbary Pirates. That's just for starters, and to give you something to mull over. LOL There's SO very much more ... including things that George Washington did !

[Gelato]

No, dear, not at all. THIS NATION, WOULD NOT EXIST , IF THOSE AGAINST SLAVERY HAD HELD OUT !

I'm sorry. Perhaps it's the late hour, but that statement is a little too incoherent to me.

My point is quite simple:

1. Our Founding Fathers articulated the principle on which our nation was based, that the rights of every human being comes from God (or, if you prefer the technical term, the "Creator").
2. Not all of Founding Fathers stayed true to that principle. Some owned slaves out of pragmatism.
3. Had they remained true to the principle, slavery would have ended sooner.
4. Nevertheless, slavery was ended years later on the very principle they articulated.

Thank God for the Founding Fathers, who articulated the principle many in our society refuse to acknowledge: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Without that principle, slavery would not have ended, and we would be Brits.

[Gelato]

Thomas Jefferson did NOT even ask for a Congressional Declaration of War, against the Barbary Pirates. That's just for starters, and to give you something to mull over. LOL There's SO very much more ... including things that George Washington did !

Actually, the pirate thing was the first time war had been declared against individuals, instead of a nation. That's why it's significant.

[Gelato]

No, we elected a president NOT a dictator or some mythical “conservative” ideal.

That's true. The office of president is not a dictatorship. That is what being bound by the strictures fo the constitution means.

A president cannot single handedly wipe out every "unconstitutional" law on the books.

Nor did we ask him to; that's the Supreme Court's role.

All I asked is for him to not put any more on the books.

He is sworn to UPHOLD those laws. He would be impeached if he did not.

He is sworn to uphold the constitution, above all. And yes, had we impeached the first president who failed to do this, we would not have the problem we have today, where presidents aren't just not expected not to uphold the constitution, they're expected to intentionally violate it.

Impeachment and removal is a check-and-balance that has never been realized, to our discredit.

You are projecting an image of a president that can NEVER be achieved beyond a complete suspension of the very constitution that you want upheld. Your litmus test can never be achieved as long as there are those that do not share your definition of a real conservative, which includes approx 75% of the country. You are doomed to be disappointed in anyone that is elected because no one can meet the standard you have set.

Who said anything about holding the president to my definitions? All I want is for him to obey the constitution. If that's too much to ask, then that office really is a dictatorship, and this is not a nation of laws.

[Gelato]

Oops . . . a double "not."

where presidents aren't just not expected not to uphold the constitution

=

where presidents aren't just expected not to uphold the constitution

[GiovannaNicoletta]

I LOVE your handle!

You have a Union Jack on your profile page. Are you British?

[JediGirl]

It looks---as if/you may/have a friend!!......

[JediGirl]

I wouldn't bother with nopardons. She's just a bitter old woman who has nothing better to do than throw around misspellings and insults.

[marajade]

Anyone who flew a plane in WWII, got shot down, and had to be plucked out of the sea by a sub, and continue to fly in battle is not a Wimp.

[staytrue]

The democrats are attacking Bush, not because of his ideals, goals or beliefs, but because of politics. He could be the same man, with a democrat label, and they would love him.

You statement is 100% true, but your implied conclusion, that bush is a democrat is not. This says something very bad about democrats and not bush. If Hitler could keep the democrats in power, they would vote for Hitler. Bush is no democrat because he actually believes in values and keeps promises. During the campaign, bush said he would increase funding for education, he was pro life but that would not be a priority for him, he said he wanted a 1.3 billion dollar (over 10 years) tax cut, he would restore honor and integrity to the white house. That's what he ran on, and that's what he did. He did not anticipate 9-11 or the deflation of the stock market bubble and made no comments about either one. In short, he delivered on what he promised. Bush is no democrat.

[tpaine]

"Just because Bush did not veto CFR and on reflection decided to involve the 3rd leg of the constitutional government to exercise its constitutional duty does not make him "unprincipled" it just meant that he decided on a different course of action than you may have." texasforever

---

It is unprincipled to take an oath of office to uphold the constitution, and then to sign a bill that you say violates the constitution. If the constitution doesn't matter, let's just say so.
Incidentally, what you're arguing is bordering close to Neitzche's existentialism--that is, that there is no right and wrong, only circumstances to which we adapt in whatever way that pleases us. I hope you don't really believe that, 'cause if you do, I take you up on it on another thread.
160 posted on 7/29/02 1:18 AM Pacific by Gelato

---

To: Gelato
You are getting into a corner. If Bush violated the constitution by letting this bill go to the USSC what have past presidents been guilty of by enforcing laws that they are on record as believing unconstitutional?
161 posted on 7/29/02 1:21 AM Pacific by Texasforever

---

Interesting exchange, and indeed, one worth its own thread.

Far to many conservatives on this forum seem to believe that pragmatic interpretations of constitutional specifics can be used to violate its basic principles.
There is a 'corner', -- and the political 'ends justify means' crowd are the ones standing in it.