If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Bush violates Constitution again...WHERE'S THE IMPEACHMENT?
On December 28, 2007, President George W. Bush directly violated the
Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 7, by illegally and willfully performing a "pocket veto" of a bill presented by Congress. A limited veto power, the "pocket veto" may only be used when a bill sent to the President is "prevented from return" for possible veto override. The main reason for a prevention of a bill's return would be that Congress is in recess, but for over sixty years, the House usually adjourns with the House clerk having instructions to take any communications from the White House, including vetoed bills, and pass their receipt along to the Speaker's office. In this case, the bill was NOT "prevented from return," as the House clerk was on duty Dec. 28, and the Senate wasn't even in recess at all. Past practice amply shows that the bill could have been returned to the House via the Clerk's office at any time on that date, or even afterward, and certainly to the Senate, which was in session at the time. Thus, yet another impeachable violation of the US Constitution by our nation's worst president ever...George W. Bush. Write your representative and senators...DEMAND IMPEACHMENT NOW! |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
while the left-wing fringers still think they are running againstBush in 2008
On Jan 8, 3:17*pm, DeserTBoB wrote:
On December 28, 2007, President George W. Bush directly violated the Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 7, by illegally and willfully performing a "pocket veto" of a bill presented by Congress. *A limited veto power, the "pocket veto" may only be used when a bill sent to the President is "prevented from return" for possible veto override. *The main reason for a prevention of a bill's return would be that Congress is in recess, but for over sixty years, the House usually adjourns with the House clerk having instructions to take any communications from the White House, including vetoed bills, and pass their receipt along to the Speaker's office. In this case, the bill was NOT "prevented from return," as the House clerk was on duty Dec. 28, and the Senate wasn't even in recess at all. *Past practice amply shows that the bill could have been returned to the House via the Clerk's office at any time on that date, or even afterward, and certainly to the Senate, which was in session at the time. Thus, yet another impeachable violation of the US Constitution by our nation's worst president ever...George W. Bush. *Write your representative and senators...DEMAND IMPEACHMENT NOW! And these left wing fringers wonder, why they're getting their ass KICKED, and will take ANOTHER asspounding in November. You're not running against BUSH anymore, you DUMB ASS- his term is up- no one in their right mind would impeach a prez for nothing, when he only has one year left in office anyway ! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Bush violates Constitution again...WHERE'S THE IMPEACHMENT?WAH!! WAH!! WAH!!
On Jan 8, 8:06*pm, Neocon Oil Cheerleaders wrote:
Join the 183,000 of us and sign the petition: If one person signs 183,000 times, it doesn't count. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Bush violates Constitution again...WHERE'S THE IMPEACHMENT?
"Neocon Oil Cheerleaders" wrote in message .net... In article , says... On December 28, 2007, President George W. Bush directly violated the Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 7, by illegally and willfully performing a "pocket veto" of a bill presented by Congress. A limited veto power, the "pocket veto" may only be used when a bill sent to the President is "prevented from return" for possible veto override. The main reason for a prevention of a bill's return would be that Congress is in recess, but for over sixty years, the House usually adjourns with the House clerk having instructions to take any communications from the White House, including vetoed bills, and pass their receipt along to the Speaker's office. In this case, the bill was NOT "prevented from return," as the House clerk was on duty Dec. 28, and the Senate wasn't even in recess at all. Past practice amply shows that the bill could have been returned to the House via the Clerk's office at any time on that date, or even afterward, and certainly to the Senate, which was in session at the time. Thus, yet another impeachable violation of the US Constitution by our nation's worst president ever...George W. Bush. Write your representative and senators...DEMAND IMPEACHMENT NOW! Join the 183,000 of us and sign the petition: http://wexlerwantshearings.com/ -- Hate Greed Death Bush I just signed. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Bush violates Constitution again...WHERE'S THE IMPEACHMENT?
On Jan 8, 9:05*pm, "Epileptic Nascar Driver"
wrote: I just signed.- If somone signs 183,001 times, it doesn't count. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
while the right-wing fringers still think they are running the 2000 vote scam
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 16:05:53 -0800 (PST),Charlie Nudo of Drums, PA
posing as trippin-2-8-track (last of 29 banned Google Groups accounts) wrote: On Jan 8, 3:17*pm, DeserTBoB wrote: On December 28, 2007, President George W. Bush directly violated the Constitution of the United States of Americasnipping rest of article *Write your representative and senators...DEMAND IMPEACHMENT NOW! And these left wing fringers wonder, why they're getting their ass KICKED, and will take ANOTHER asspounding in November. snip Democratic primary voters are outvoting Republicans by more than two to one. That's an "ass kicking," Noodles? Looks like YOU'RE the one getting the ass kicking! You're not running against BUSH anymore, you DUMB ASS- his term is up- no one in their right mind would impeach a prez for nothing, when he only has one year left in office anyway ! snip Why is Romney sinking so fast? He allied himself with the Bush Doctrine and other Bush fantasies...he's COOKED. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Bush violates Constitution again...WHERE'S THE IMPEACHMENT?
On Jan 8, 12:17 pm, DeserTBoB wrote:
On December 28, 2007, President George W. Bush directly violated the Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 7, by illegally and willfully performing a "pocket veto" of a bill presented by Congress. A limited veto power, the "pocket veto" may only be used when a bill sent to the President is "prevented from return" for possible veto override. The main reason for a prevention of a bill's return would be that Congress is in recess, but for over sixty years, the House usually adjourns with the House clerk having instructions to take any communications from the White House, including vetoed bills, and pass their receipt along to the Speaker's office. In this case, the bill was NOT "prevented from return," as the House clerk was on duty Dec. 28, and the Senate wasn't even in recess at all. Past practice amply shows that the bill could have been returned to the House via the Clerk's office at any time on that date, or even afterward, and certainly to the Senate, which was in session at the time. Thus, yet another impeachable violation of the US Constitution by our nation's worst president ever...George W. Bush. Write your representative and senators...DEMAND IMPEACHMENT NOW! Tired of no impeachment or at the least, an congressional investigation? Then write to John Conyers, Henry Waxman, and Nancy Pelosi. If you don't live in either Conyers' or Waxman's district, sending an email is tricky. You can send an email to Pelosi regardless if you're in her district or not because, as the Speaker of the House, she answers everyone. Her email is: Don't hold your breath, though. These three have thrown in the towel. Waxman has admitted that pursuing impeachment would hurt the Democrats. If this bothers you, as it should even Republicans, write to all three. They are suppose to represent us, and to support the Constitution. Their admission that politics outweighs their duties to the Constitution is illegal. Republicans, you should write, too. Isn't it time you point out how illegal their political machinations are? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
while the left-wing fringers still think they are running againstBush in 2008
On Jan 8, 7:05*pm, trippin-2-8-track wrote:
On Jan 8, 3:17*pm, DeserTBoB wrote: On December 28, 2007, President George W. Bush directly violated the Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 7, by illegally and willfully performing a "pocket veto" of a bill presented by Congress. *A limited veto power, the "pocket veto" may only be used when a bill sent to the President is "prevented from return" for possible veto override. *The main reason for a prevention of a bill's return would be that Congress is in recess, but for over sixty years, the House usually adjourns with the House clerk having instructions to take any communications from the White House, including vetoed bills, and pass their receipt along to the Speaker's office. In this case, the bill was NOT "prevented from return," as the House clerk was on duty Dec. 28, and the Senate wasn't even in recess at all. *Past practice amply shows that the bill could have been returned to the House via the Clerk's office at any time on that date, or even afterward, and certainly to the Senate, which was in session at the time. Thus, yet another impeachable violation of the US Constitution by our nation's worst president ever...George W. Bush. *Write your representative and senators...DEMAND IMPEACHMENT NOW! And these left wing fringers wonder, why they're getting their ass KICKED, and will take ANOTHER asspounding in November. You're not running against BUSH anymore, you DUMB ASS- his term is up- Ah, but the stench will live on forever, dork. Bush may not be running but ANY rightard running for office will have that Bush stench to deal with. Choke on it. no one in their right mind would impeach a prez for nothing, when he only has one year left in office anyway ! I'm ALL for waiting until after he leaves office for the charges to be brought. No problem there, dork. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Bush violates Constitution again...WHERE'S THE IMPEACHMENT?
in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, On Tue, 08 Jan 2008, DeserTBoB said about: Bush violates Constitution again...WHERE'S THE IMPEACHMENT? On December 28, 2007, President George W. Bush directly violated the Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 7, by illegally and willfully performing a "pocket veto" of a bill presented .........snip Thus, yet another impeachable violation of the US Constitution by our nation's worst president ever...George W. Bush. How many does that make anyway? At least six or eight. Nobody cares. Republicans are so bad, it just gets a yawn. ============ Friday, November 17, 2006 court ruled unconstitutional Different court rulings: Supreme Court June 29, 2006 5 to 3 Ruling Curbs President's Claim Of Wartime Power. Supreme Court ruled, Rejected, struck down the Detainee Tribunals (military commissions ) which did not give defendants a presumption of innocence or guarantee a public trial and violate both U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions. The Supreme Court struck down the military commissions President Bush established to try suspected members of al-Qaeda, emphatically rejecting a signature Bush anti-terrorism measure and the broad assertion of executive power upon which the president had based it. Bush's commissions were neither authorized by federal law nor required by military necessity, and ran afoul of the Geneva Conventions. Supreme Court Jun 29 2004 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld Observing that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens," the Supreme Court ruled that both foreign prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay and so-called enemy combatants held in the United States can use the American legal system to challenge their detention. The Supreme Court sharply rejected George W. Bush's assertions that he had unchecked unilateral authority to lock up indefinitely any person he declared an "enemy combatant" in the global "war on terrorism." federal judge September 29, 2004 A federal judge in New York ruled that a key component of the USA Patriot Act [especially: "national security letters," a type of administrative subpoena that allows federal agents to demand records from businesses and prohibits the companies from revealing that the demands were made ] is unconstitutional because it allows the FBI to demand information from Internet service providers without judicial oversight or public review. federal judge 2005 Mar 30 A federal judge refused to let the Bush Administration, which opposes torture, send (render) prisoners from Guantánamo Bay to other prisons abroad without granting the prisoners access to the courts.[Washington Post]» federal judge Aug 17, 2006 CNN.com - NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional -... A federal judge ruled that the US government's domestic eavesdropping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately. The judge ruled that the program "violates the separation of powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III." ========== (signing statements) WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. April 30, 2006 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...dreds_of_laws/ ------------unclear: In the Guantánamo cases, the Court ruled 6-3 that prisoners seized as potential terrorists and held for more than two years at a U.S. military prison camp in Cuba may challenge their captivity in American courts. Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said that the inmates' status in military custody is immaterial. "What is presently at stake is only whether the federal courts have jurisdiction to determine the legality of the executive's potentially indefinite detention of individuals who claim to be wholly innocent of wrongdoing," he wrote. The cases are Rasul v. Bush, 03-334 and Al Odah v. United States, 03-343. ================= Web Results about 340,000 for Detainees court ruled unconstitutional . (0.20 seconds) High Court Rejects Detainee Tribunals Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, must have courts-martial, the Supreme Court ruled, or the president can ask for legislation to proceed differently. ... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062900928.html - High Court Rejects Detainee Tribunals 5 to 3 Ruling Curbs President's Claim Of Wartime Power (Pool Photo) Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, must have courts-martial, the Supreme Court ruled, or the president can ask for legislation to proceed differently. By Charles Lane Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, June 30, 2006; Page A01 The Supreme Court yesterday struck down the military commissions President Bush established to try suspected members of al-Qaeda, emphatically rejecting a signature Bush anti-terrorism measure and the broad assertion of executive power upon which the president had based it. Brushing aside administration pleas not to second-guess the commander in chief during wartime, a five-justice majority ruled that the commissions, which were outlined by Bush in a military order on Nov. 13, 2001, were 1) not authorized by federal law 2) nor required by military necessity, and 3) ran afoul of the Geneva Conventions. As a result, no military commission can try Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the former aide to Osama bin Laden whose case was before the justices, or anyone else, unless the president does one of two things he has resisted doing for more than four years: 1) operate the commissions by the rules of regular military courts-martial, or 2) ask Congress for specific permission to proceed differently. "[i]n undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority opinion. While the decision addressed only military commissions, legal analysts said its skeptical view of presidential power could be applied to other areas such as warrantless wiretapping, and that its invocation of the Geneva Conventions could pave the way for new legal claims by detainees held at the military facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The ruling shifts the spotlight to Congress, whose members face reelection this fall and who have largely avoided the military commission issue since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks because of its political uncertainties. The invitation for the president to turn to Congress was extended in a short concurring opinion by one of the justices in the majority, Stephen G. Breyer, who made it clear that the concerns of critics had penetrated deeply at the court. "Where, as here, no emergency prevents consultation with Congress, judicial insistence upon that consultation does not weaken our Nation's ability to deal with danger. To the contrary, that insistence strengthens the Nation's ability to determine -- through democratic means -- how best to do so," Breyer wrote. "The Constitution places its faith in those democratic means," Breyer concluded. "Our Court today simply does the same." Joining Stevens and Breyer in the majority were Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Perhaps the only silver lining for the administration was that the decision did not affect the government's authority to keep terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, a point Bush emphasized in his reaction. "We take the findings seriously," he said. "The American people need to know that this ruling, as I understand it, won't cause killers to be put out on the street." But the court's action was clearly a setback for the White House. At the high court, its approach to the war on terrorism has suffered the broadest in a series of defeats, and the administration has been sent back to the drawing board in dealing with hundreds of suspected members of the Taliban and al-Qaeda -- at a time when international pressure is mounting to shut down Guantanamo Bay. This is not the situation the president envisioned when he unveiled the military commissions as a tough-minded alternative to the civilian trials that the Clinton administration had used against terrorists. As first outlined in 2001, the commissions did not give defendants a presumption of innocence or guarantee a public trial. =============== Key Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional (washingtonpost.com) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep29.html - -------------------- unconstitutional because it allows the FBI to demand information from Internet service providers without judicial oversight or public review. -------------------- Correction to This Article A Sept. 30 article said that a federal judge in New York found a key component of the USA Patriot Act unconstitutional. At issue in the case was the Justice Department's use of "national security letters," a type of administrative subpoena that allows federal agents to demand records from businesses and prohibits the companies from revealing that the demands were made. While the Patriot Act loosened restrictions on the use of the letters, most of U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero's ruling focused on earlier statutes governing the letters. Key Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional Internet Providers' Data at Issue By Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, September 30, 2004; Page A16 A federal judge in New York ruled yesterday [September 29, 2004] that a key component of the USA Patriot Act is unconstitutional because it allows the FBI to demand information from Internet service providers without judicial oversight or public review. The ruling is one of several judicial blows to the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies in recent months. In a sharply worded 120-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero found in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a lawsuit on behalf of an unidentified Internet service provider challenging the FBI's use of a type of administrative subpoena known as a national security letter. Such letters do not require court approval and prohibit targeted companies from revealing that the demands were ever made. Marrero, whose court is in the Southern District of New York, ruled that the provision in the Patriot Act allowing such letters "effectively bars or substantially deters any judicial challenge" and violates free-speech rights by imposing permanent silence on targeted companies. Writing that "democracy abhors undue secrecy," Marrero ruled that "an unlimited government warrant to conceal . . . has no place in our open society." "Under the mantle of secrecy, the self-preservation that ordinarily impels our government to censorship and secrecy may potentially be turned on ourselves as a weapon of self-destruction," Marrero wrote. ". . . At that point, secrecy's protective shield may serve not as much to secure a safe country as simply to save face." The judge ordered the Justice Department to halt the use of the letters but delayed the injunction by 90 days to allow for an appeal. The government is reviewing its options, Justice Department spokesman John Nowacki said. Marrero's ruling is the latest setback in the courts for the Bush administration's terrorism policies, which civil libertarians and some lawmakers consider overly broad. The Supreme Court ruled in June that detainees held as "enemy combatants" may challenge their confinement through the U.S. courts. Two rulings by federal courts in California have also struck down portions of statutes making it a crime to provide "material support" to terrorists. The ultimate impact of Marrero's order is unclear. In addition to having time to pursue an appeal, the government will view the ruling as applying only to New York's Southern District in Manhattan, legal experts said. I. Michael Greenberger, a Clinton administration Justice Department official who teaches law at the University of Maryland, said Marrero's order is unlikely to have any effect until an appellate court rules. But the ACLU argues that Marrero's ruling is a warning to the government about some of its tactics in the war on terrorism. "This is a wholesale refutation of the administration's use of excessive secrecy and unbridled power under the Patriot Act," said Ann Beeson, an ACLU lawyer. "It's a very major ruling, in our opinion." The secrecy surrounding the use of national security letters has had an unusual impact on the ACLU's lawsuit, which itself was initially filed in secret to comply with the Patriot Act, the controversial package of anti-terrorism measures approved by Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Documents in the case also revealed that the government had censored more than a dozen seemingly innocuous passages from court filings, including a direct quote from a 1972 Supreme Court ruling warning that government has a tendency to abuse its powers in the name of "domestic security." Even now, the plaintiffs are barred from revealing which company filed the lawsuit. Marrero disclosed in his ruling that the FBI has issued hundreds of national security letters before and since the lawsuit was filed in April, but no precise figures have been released. Beeson said Marrero's ruling applies only to national security letters related to Internet and e-mail service providers. Separate provisions of the Patriot Act also enhanced the government's ability to use such letters against financial and credit institutions. ================================ CNN.com - NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional - Aug 17, 2006... A federal judge ruled that the US government's domestic eavesdropping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/...pying.lawsuit/ - 46k NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional Administration appeals; attorney general says 'program is lawful' Thursday, August 17, 2006; Posted: 6:03 p.m. EDT (22:03 GMT) (CNN) -- A federal judge on Thursday ruled that the U.S. government's domestic eavesdropping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately. Write your representative and senators...DEMAND IMPEACHMENT NOW! The important thing is, Bush seemingly didn't lie about sex. How do you spell duped ? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ebay Coin Policy violates anti-trust laws | Sergeant Newton | Coins | 22 | December 29th 07 12:04 PM |
Impeachment on the march! | DeserTBoB | 8 Track Tapes | 0 | March 10th 06 07:59 PM |
Get yours today! Why wait until the impeachment trials? | DeserTBoB | 8 Track Tapes | 1 | November 15th 05 06:56 PM |
Downing St. Memos sets Bush up for impeachment | DeserTBoB | 8 Track Tapes | 0 | June 18th 05 03:38 AM |
Talking Presidents G. W. Bush and Clinton / Top Gun President Bush Dolls for Sale | Donna | Dolls | 0 | March 6th 04 12:16 AM |