Bush is Shredding the Constitution!

Thread starter #1
The New York Sun
Backing Bush
BY RUSS SMITH
August 17, 2007

One of the more absurd complaints leveled against President Bush during his tumultuous tenure in office is that, in combating terrorism, he's eviscerated the Constitution. This hysteria is not confined to critics in the blogosphere or strident left-wing magazines such as the Nation but is found, as well, in mass-market newspapers and magazines. A citizen who reads, in a vacuum, editorials and oped columnists in the New York Times, say, might believe that since September 11 America, led by the Bush administration, has become a police state.

The latest round of hyperbolic arguments offered by anti-administration partisans concerns the acquiescence of Congress to put off for six months any revisions to Mr. Bush's allowance of wiretapping of telephone calls that are suspected to contain discussion of possible terrorism.

Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, writing in that magazine's current issue, claims that Mr. Bush has "betrayed his oath to defend the Constitution," and what's worse, from his point of view, is that Democrats were too politically frightened to oppose him.

Hardly anyone would disagree that the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is badly outdated, needs overhaul; it's the extent of the changes that has Democrats in a dither.

Mr. Alter begins his column: "I hate to sound melodramatic about it, but while everyone was at the beach or ‘The Simpsons Movie' on the first weekend of August, the U.S. government shredded the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, the one requiring court-approved ‘probable cause' before Americans can be searched or spied upon."

The author's essay is a role reversal of sorts: On election night in 2000, Mr. Alter, perhaps sleep deprived, was seen on MSNBC in the wee hours fairly ranting that Vice President Gore was cheated and should be granted the presidency because he won the popular vote. Unless I'm mistaken, that seems to be an example of "shredding " the Constitution.

What's particularly galling about the inflamed rhetoric of Mr. Bush's detractors — doing exactly what they accuse him of — is that there's no historical context to the opinions. Public and private education has devolved to such a point that it's not surprising few people are familiar with President Wilson's actions during World War I, but it's disgraceful that supposedly learned journalists, professors, and politicians are either ignorant of his policies or conveniently choose to ignore them.

Wilson, a Democrat, was successful in asking Congress to pass the Sedition Act of 1918, a piece of legislation that made it illegal to say, write, or print anything that was deemed "disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive" about the government's involvement in the war.

Approximately 2,000 people were convicted of this new crime, most notably socialist Eugene Debs, who was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and later granted clemency by Wilson in 1921. If a president of Wilson's beliefs were in power today, one wonders about the fate of Steven Levitt, who, in the New York Times blog "Freakonomics" of August 8, asks the question, "If You Were a Terrorist, How Would You Attack?"

The Democratic Party's most revered icon of the 20th century, Franklin Roosevelt, was not a personal liberties absolutist either: In 1942, months after Pearl Harbor, he ordered the internment of 120,000 Japanese Americans, about two-thirds of whom were citizens, to "relocation centers" in Western America. FDR's edict, which was met with little opposition from the public, wasn't rescinded until 1944.

It's not difficult to imagine the justified outcry if Mr. Bush, like Wilson, effectively suspended First Amendment rights. However, in the modern communications industry, which is vastly more expansive than the one Wilson grappled with, Mr. Bush and members of his administration are subjected daily to withering critiques, some "scurrilous," some rational, and no one has been jailed or fined for objecting to his wartime decisions.

The New York Times's editorial page has, among the elite daily newspapers, been virulent — some would say screeching — in its opposition to almost every decision Mr. Bush makes. This includes, repeatedly, castigating the president over the FISA brouhaha, with the refrain that the administration is "stonewalling" and denying Americans information about the issue. On August 11, a Times editorialist concluded: "If Congress once again allows itself to be cowed by Mr. Bush's fearmongering, it must accept responsibility for undermining the democratic values that separate this nation from the terrorists that Mr. Bush claims to be fighting." One can ignore the ridiculous notion by the writer that Mr. Bush is merely "claiming" to combat the terrorists who could at any time, without warning, inflict catastrophic damage on these shores. After all, it's of a piece with the daily's drumbeat that Mr. Bush can't be trusted on virtually any matter of national importance.

Still, less than 18 months from now a new president will be in charge — quite possibly, if not probably, a Democrat — and the extraordinarily difficult job of protecting Americans won't disappear with a turn of the calendar page.

Should Senators Clinton or Obama replace Mr. Bush it's entirely reasonable to speculate as to whether the current opinion makers who insist this president is "shredding" the Constitution will apply the same standards to his successor.

Don't count on it.
 

drhunter1

Senior Member
Hypocrites all of them! How dare they point the finger at Bush for shredding the Constitution.
I could shut the server down with examples of how the Democrats (and some RINO's) have gone about the business of violating the constitution.
 

drhunter1

Senior Member
Come on Liberals! Don't be chicken. I know talkingpoints.com has something to spoon feed you with.
 
Amusing that the author would use the examples of Wilson and FDR. Looking back we as a country realized how extreme were their policies. Those who oppose Bush's shredding of the 4th Amendment are getting it right in real time. Some of us do learn from our mistakes.
 
Thread starter #7
This is why liberals make me sick
by hunter


Lately the liberals have me feeling so bad for the foreign terrorist, that are wanting to make a phone call.
These terrorist, simply wanted to use our constitution to defend themselves, while they discuss their plans to kill innocent American citizens, and bush wanted to take this from them.

As we speak, the liberal politicians are working hard to take, freedom of speech, firearms, and the hard earned money, from American citizens.
Liberals take every opportunity to condemn and demoralize our troops, and handicap america in it's war against terrorism.
While amazingly these liberals still find time, in their busy schedule, to fight for the rights of foreign terrorist.


for more information on hunters articles go to liberalsuckmud.com:flag:
 
Why is it amusing?
Because we now look upon the actions of both as wrong. It is amusing that the author would use examples that disprove his point. As I said, we don't have to wait for history to condemn Bush's violations of the Constitution, many Americans are getting it right in real time.

The author is arguing that it's okay for us to do stupid things because we have done them before.
 

dixie

Senior Member
Because we now look upon the actions of both as wrong. It is amusing that the author would use examples that disprove his point. As I said, we don't have to wait for history to condemn Bush's violations of the Constitution, many Americans are getting it right in real time.

The author is arguing that it's okay for us to do stupid things because we have done them before.
you mean like slick willy and the echelon program?
 
Yes, Dixie, that is exactly what I meant.
Linwood,I like your signature,

"Liberal is a majic word that applies to those who are in other liberal's good graces until they aren't. At which point they become as Joe Liberman"
 

drhunter1

Senior Member
Yes, Dixie, that is exactly what I meant.
I wonder Linwood, where were you with your Clinton bashing when this was going on? Did you speak up then and if so, how?
 
"If Congress once again allows itself to be cowed by Mr. Bush's fearmongering, it must accept responsibility for undermining the democratic values that separate this nation from the terrorists that Mr. Bush claims to be fighting."
So I guess, according to the NYT, that the twin towers attack was a figment of my and everyone else’s imagination.

Should Senators Clinton or Obama replace Mr. Bush it's entirely reasonable to speculate as to whether the current opinion makers who insist this president is "shredding" the Constitution will apply the same standards to his successor.
I’m willing to bet the farm on this one.
 
Thread starter #16
The author is arguing that it's okay for us to do stupid things because we have done them before.
Actually that is not his argument at all. He uses the examples of Wilson and FDR to contrast outrageous and prudent national security measures.
 
6

60Grit

Guest
Actually that is not his argument at all. He uses the examples of Wilson and FDR to contrast outrageous and prudent national security measures.
Lins point exactly Elfiii.

Don't you know that the Democrats regard national security as stupid??:rolleyes:
 
Actually that is not his argument at all. He uses the examples of Wilson and FDR to contrast outrageous and prudent national security measures.
Which are outrageous and which are prudent according to the author?
 
Thread starter #19
Which are outrageous and which are prudent according to the author?
He's pretty clear on that point. See if you can figure it out.
 
Top