Bush doesn't care.

He answers to a higher power than some “damned scrap of paper,” that is; his corporate masters.

Besides, for him to read the Constitution would hinge upon him being able to mouth through all those big, difficult words, and then having to have someone explain to him what they mean.

Someone like Uncle Dick, who's already wiped his @$$ on it, anyway.

Too bad Santa couldn't have done a fly by and dumped the bag on both their heads.

Death by Constitution!

Now that, I like!

The nuNazi'll try to burn them like Oil Cheney did his office a la Hitler. They're on the ropes, almost 200,00 thousand people on the impeachment signatures, no more war(s) and sooon, Billary 'drug cartel' vs....

I betcha they're all toasty and warm in the White House tonight from the roaring fire all those copies of the constitution made.

They dont care and are laughing at it.

I have to say, i do like what they did, though. Thank he got the message?

NOT.

I'm just curious. What part or parts of the Constitution has Bush been derelict in supporting, protecting and/or defending? Please be specific.

Originally posted by m3rlz
the riots incited in Seattle because of the WTO protests were started by "left-wing anarchist groups [that] are actually controlled by the state and used to demonize peaceful protesters."

the same thing happened in Quebec at the SPP summit earlier this year when three plain-clothes police provocateurs try to start another riot...

a so-called "Free Speech Zone" is definately a violation of the 1st Amendment...

Which indicates to me that these state instigated riots were simply part of a plan to bring about the Orwellian "newspeak" Free Speech Zones.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by goosdawg]

Maybe they should have also given a copy to each and every member of congress as well.

M3rls,

Let's say that you wrote: "A 'Free Speech Zone' is a violation of the 1st Amendment."

I would wholeheartedly agree with your statement, per se. However, in this (that) case, we're not merely discussing public "speech", we are discussing pubic safety.

When, M3rls, should we protect our (let's call it) "freedom of expression" over our (let's call it) "freedom of freedom from 'freedom of expression', a.k.a, what we are blessed by the blood of our forefathers to call 'common ol' everyday annoying Freedom'"?

But, then again, we allegedly came here to talk about Bush. So let's move on, m!

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
However, in this (that) case, we're not merely discussing public "speech", we are discussing pubic safety.

greetings... did you watch those videos?

public safety would not have been a concern if the state-sponsored Black Bloc group was not there to stir up trouble... it was a peaceful protest until they started in, and the police did nothing about it...

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
When, M3rls, should we protect our (let's call it) "freedom of expression" over our (let's call it) "freedom of freedom from 'freedom of expression', a.k.a, what we are blessed by the blood of our forefathers to call 'common ol' everyday annoying Freedom'"?

i can't comprehend that question at the moment as i am a bit drunk, lol... i will read it again tomorrow...

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
But, then again, we allegedly came here to talk about Bush. So let's move on, m!

that is correct, and the examples posted above by Alien42 are a good start... Bush had to sign those bills into law, which in turn helps to further nullify what the Constitution represents...

here is another small, yet rather insignificant, example of Bush himself violating the Constitution:

on 20 Jan 2005, when Bush was sworn in for his second term, he was sworn in at 11:56 A.M. EST, which is a violation of the 20th amendment since his first term was technically not over at that time... Cheney also violated it because he was sworn in before Bush... they were using Skull and Bones standard time, which is supposedly five minutes ahead of the time of the rest of the world...

Amendment 20 - Presidential, Congressional Terms. Ratified 01/23/1933.

1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

they cannot be sworn in before noon until the previous term has ended...

g'nite for now...

[edit] p.s. -- it is "m3rlz" [/edit]

[edit on 22 12Dec 07 by m3rlz]

Free speech was a lot easier to define when people were at least tolerant of others' opinions and allowed them to be heard. I keep seeing the term free speech used by large groups of idiots that think it protects their right to crash an assembly of those with an opposing viewpoint and yell loudly so that the opposing viewpoint is never heard. I doubt our forefathers ever thought a time would come in this country where people would have so little respect for others that they would do such a thing.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by BlueTriangle]