Doesn't the Constitution supersede

[warrior1]

anything bush or cheney have done to try and over ride it?

How will the congress stop him? Is this not another thing that is impeachable?

[madokie]

1. it'll be interesting to see the results of this post

I was always under the assumption that the constitution is supreme law

[lazer47]

5. You just don't get it

there is nothing to worry about this is all part of a "new way forward", the Constitution has been getting in the way of good government, All we have to do is just trust them,:sarcasm:

[warrior1]

2. well like the rest of my post

it sinks pretty fast.

[soothsayer]

3. the constitution is a quaint document, much like the geneva convention, to this crowd.

[spanone]

4. When you make the laws, enforce the laws, and ignore the laws and impeachment is off the table?

You are the fucking King.

[treestar]

6. We The People are in charge ultimately

we need a massive march on Washington, or some sort of all day boycott -

Impeachment looks better and better every day - as long as it's done on grounds that reflect the disrespect for the rule of law currently shown in the Executive Branch.

[mmonk]

7. Congress can stop him when the democrats can agree

to vote together in the House to impeach. Otherwise, we will merely ride out remaining crimes against the constitution and receive no remedy nor acknowledgment of the bush administration's crimes against the constitution. The sad thing is impeachment is the easiest path to change. Because of disinformation to cover the real reason there is no impeachment (not enough democratic support), the constitutional remedy is tabled for the harder path that requires veto proof majorities with republican help or bush agreement with the democrats.

[rasputin1952]

8. Marbury v Madison set the standard for the Constitution as

being the Law of the Land. While it was essentially showing that congress could not pass laws deemed unconstitutioal, it is easily rolled over to cover te executive branch, which has no authority to make law. The problem si the make-up of the present Court; Scalia, Thomas, and Alito would have a hard time extracing their lips from bush's ass w/o a crowbar enough to see the problem of this type of thing.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

9. Those in power believe in a nation of men, not laws.

Since their power isn't being challenged, we ARE a nation of men, not laws.

[TwilightGardener]

10. It would, if anyone in Congress bothered to uphold it.

[atreides1]

11. Not Only Congress

The military is also obligated to support and defend the Constitution, so far the only part of their oath they seem to be paying attention to, is the part about following orders.

If the "I was following orders" defense didn't work for the German military, it definitely shouldn't work for the US military either!

[conscious evolution]

15. Nuremburg Principle IV

Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.


The General and Admiral Corps of the Armed Forces should reread the Nuremburg Principles.
Hey,Agent Mike,Could you forward these to them?

Principle I
Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.


Principle II
The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.


Principle III
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.


Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.


Principle V
Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.


Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War Crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

[merh]

18. how dare you imply that

our government is run by nazis? :sarcasm:

That would be the response on the right if you call their attention to Nuremburg.

They only care about the wrongs of others, the USofA and her leaders can do no wrong.

We are the law and we are reason. (in their eyes)


:cry:

[conscious evolution]

19. Bullfuckingshit they ain't!!

That is my usual responce to them.
Lately I have turned up the invective on anyone who tries to defend the fascist assholes who have hijacked our country.
It seems that getting in their face screaming has more effect on them than trying to use logic and well-nuanced arguments.
If nothing else it scares the crap out of them to have a hippie in their face.They just don't know how to handle a make love not war tree-hugging peacenik being anything but.

[merh]

20. LOL, I haven't tried that approach yet

but it has to be close in coming, they are driving bat shit crazy.

And speaking of hippies, can you fucking believe that Fred Thompson fans have the nerve to pervert the name of the fans of the Grateful Dead???

I hope that Garcia curses them from the grave for that hijacking x(

[conscious evolution]

21. Eewww!

They just fuck EVERYTHING up!

[merh]

24. and think how friggin bizarre

for years they have made fun of dirty, peace nik hippies, now they steal a valued nickname and pervert it to their own.

FredHeads, just image those gatherings and the t-shirts :puke:

[spanone]

12. Only if the Constutution is upheld. Otherwise it's toilet paper.

[mondo joe]

13. The Constitution requires enforcement through government.

It can't do it on its own.

[GeorgeGist]

14. Documents have no power ...

to enforce themselves.

[ThomWV]

16. If Signing Statements trump law then what does the Constitution mean?

[TahitiNut]

17. Impeachment "off the table" was a declaration of a lawless regime. The cops are on STRIKE!

There is NO LAW unless it's enforced. Congress has that duty. When they proclaimed a "sick-out" or "strike" by saying that impeachment was "off the table" they gave this regime permission to ignore ALL LAWS.

The People have no way short of violent revolution to remove a pResidency that's taken unto itself Imperial Powers when the Congress surrenders its most important enforcement tool: impeachment.

[krispos42]

22. It's suppose to stop them from doing it in the first place

If the police roll over and play dead about a law, it's useless. The people ultimately must either force their representatives to enforce the law or replace the useless representatives. However, the Republican party operates on an inverse-representation priciple, so you can count them out.

I wrote about inverse-representation in my Journal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3315075

Feel free to, yanno, kick it. Or whatever... :-)

[WinkyDink]

23. Yes. It is the Supreme Law of the land. ONLY an amendment can...amend it.