low_delta: (burn)
I didn't find this article very interesting, except for one part.


Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'
By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 9, 2005


Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”


I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that “goddamned piece of paper” used to guarantee.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document.”

Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn’t matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn’t matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine – in the end – if something is legal or right.

Every federal official – including the President – who takes an oath of office swears to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a “living document.”

“"Oh, how I hate the phrase we have—a 'living document,’” Scalia says. “We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake.”

As a judge, Scalia says, “I don't have to prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything else.”

President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a “union between a man and woman.” Members of Congress have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion.

Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of rights.

“We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones,” Scalia warns. “Don't think that it's a one-way street.”

And don’t buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.

But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just “a goddamned piece of paper.”

© Copyright 2005 by Capitol Hill Blue


So what does that mean, exactly? The president thinks he's above the law? Or that he doesn't realize that the Constitution is the law? Is he arrogant, dumb, or both?

Thanks to seamusd

Date: 2005-12-12 05:02 am (UTC)From: [identity profile] zaecus.livejournal.com
I suppose it most likely means that he thinks his judgement is better than 200+ years of legal and political justification when it comes to deciding whether or not the Constitution should matter.

Date: 2005-12-12 05:20 am (UTC)From: [identity profile] seriouspaul.livejournal.com
I'm curious if this can be found from a source that is less political, given that all media has an angle of course.

Date: 2005-12-12 05:24 am (UTC)From: [identity profile] low-delta.livejournal.com
Good question, but it comes down to whether you believe Bush said it or not. I don't see how it could be spun in a certain direction.

Date: 2005-12-12 06:12 am (UTC)From: [identity profile] sunshine-two.livejournal.com
he's nuts.

Date: 2005-12-12 01:28 pm (UTC)From: [identity profile] likethebeer.livejournal.com
whew.

Of course, none of this is really a surprise. Our president is a spoiled brat. None of the people in that family should be allowed to breed, since they obviously can't raise children.

On a lighter note, from The Boston Globe, 87 year old Mike Wallace is interviewed:
Q. President George W. Bush has declined to be interviewed by you. What would you ask him if you had the chance?

A. What in the world prepared you to be the commander in chief of the largest superpower in the world? In your background, Mr. President, you apparently were incurious. You didn't want to travel. You knew very little about the military. . . . The governor of Texas doesn't have the kind of power that some governors have. . . . Why do you think they nominated you? . . . Do you think that has anything to do with the fact that the country is so [expletive] up?

Profile

low_delta: (Default)
low_delta

February 2026

S M T W T F S
12 3 4567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 7th, 2026 04:57 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios