Originally posted by _Johnny_Utah_
Unconstitutional would be letting a President get away with perjury.
The Center for Public Integrity | Iraq : The War Card | Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War
President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.
On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.
It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.
In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.
I love how defenders of President Clinton STILL say it was about oral sex.
Things are “ruled” constitutional. How are they ruled…by the a judge's perception of what the Constitution says. It's always been that way. I will agree with you, I don’t think they are Constitutional, but nevertheless a judge ruled them to be by way of his/her interpretation. If the Constitution was suspended…it would have never made it to the judge to begin with. The court would have no say.
Army Regulation 840-10, 2.3(b) (1979) states:
b. National flags listed below are for indoor displays and for use in ceremonies and parades. For these purposes the United States flag will be rayon banner cloth, trimmed on three sides with golden yellow fringe, 2 1/2 inches wide.
Army Regulation 840-10, 2.3(c) states:
c. Authorization for indoor display. The flag of the United States is authorized for indoor display for:
(1) each office, headquarters, and organization authorized a positional color, distinguishing flag, or organizational color;
(2) each organization of battalion size or larger, temporary or permanent, not otherwise authorized a flag of the United States;
(3) each military installation not otherwise authorized an indoor flag of the United States, for the purpose of administering oaths of office;
(4) each military courtroom;
(5) each US Army element of joint commands, military groups, and missions. One flag is authorized for any one headquarters operating in a dual capacity;
(6) each subordinate element of the US Army Recruiting Command;
(7) each ROTC unit, including those at satellited schools;
(8) each reception station.
Public Policy is policy, because and only because, it has been ruled to be Constitutional OR it is unchallenged to not be so in court.
You can think or feel differently, but that is how it is.
Anecdotal cases where there a interpretations WE (that is me too) don’t agree with…is not proof of the reverse.
You are the one who said, either on this thread or the other one, that the President is a dictator.
You cannot site Military Regulations and apply them to the non-military courts. They are exceptionally different.
The Constitution was not created as a guideline or set path, giving us instructions on everything we can and cannot do. Obviously, there are many things which we have issues with now, that the writers did not foresee.
But the Constitution is being contradicted everyday. Furthermore, if you go to court to fight for your Constitutional rights, your claim will be dismissed as frivolous.
When was the last time you ever heard of a person going to court to fight for their Constitutional rights? I'm not talking about suits that could be genuinely frivolous. NO ONE can go to court to fight for their "inalienable rights" outlined by the Constitution.
But the fact remains that whatever Constitutional protections we are afforded, are not based on Constitutional authority, but current statutes instead.
"Illegal search and seizure" was outlined in the Constitution, but the authority rests in the current statutes instead. It is now public policy that the police in NYC are allowed to search you in the subways without a warrant or even direct probable cause. This stands in direct contradiction to the Constitutionally protected right. There was no Constitutional Amendment made to allow warrantless searches. It has simply become a matter of public policy upheld by the statutes or the courts.
(1) . . ever since the Constitution was suspended in 1933. There is no Constitutional right, ever since 1933. (2) Only matters of statutory public policy.
1) Why have you picked 1933 as the year of the suspension of the US Con?
With the nation bankrupt and insolvent, the U.S. Constitution was suspended in 1933 with Congressional approval and by the Executive Order of President Frankiln D. Roosevelt when he asked for,"Broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe."
Constitutional authority has never been reinstated. The emergency has never been declared over. Speaking to Congress, US Rep. James Traficant declared the following:
“It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. HJR 192, 73rd Congress session of June 5, 1933 - Joint Resolution to Suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States governmental offices and departments and is further evidence that the United States Government exists today in name only.
The receivers of the United States bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States offices, officials and departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. With the constitutional Republican form of government now dissolved, the receivers of the bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of the Treasury to that of the Governor of the international Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section 13955 reads in part: "The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States."”
2) Can you explain in a few words what is the difference between No. 1 and No. 2?
Public law. That branch or department of law which is concerned with the state in its political or sovereign capacity, including constitutional and administrative law, and with the definition, regulation, and enforcement of rights where the state is regarded as the subject of the right or object of the duty, . . . That portion of law which is concerned with political conditions; that is to say, with the powers, rights, duties, capacities, and incapacities which are peculiar to political superiors, supreme and subordinate.
Public policy. Community common sense and common conscience, extended and applied throughout the state to matters of public morals, health, safety, welfare, and the like; it is that general and well-settled public opinion relating to man's plain, palpable duty to his fellow men, having due regard to all circumstances of each particular relation and situation.
That's like asking why I chose 1929 for the Great Depression to start. But if you are looking for further evidence that 1933 was the year which the US Constitution was suspended, I will submit the following:
With the nation bankrupt and insolvent, the U.S. Constitution was suspended in 1933 with Congressional approval and by the Executive Order of President Franklin D. Roosevelt when he asked for,"Broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe."
I believe this is either a mis-quote or a quote taken out of context.
Every action FDR did was done through Congress, which enacted most of the laws he asked for between 1933 and 1939, the New Deal era.
It was not only the Federal government that became the private property of the elite international bankers. State government as well, having already relinquished their sovereignty to the Federal Government in the Civil War, are included as default payment. Where states were once sovereign republics, they are now designated as Federal Districts superimposed on the pre-existing borders. For example, the republic of Arizona (Ariz.) has been designated as the federal STATE OF ARIZONA (AZ). Note the all capital print in the latter. In an even clearer example, if you were to file a federal court case in Colorado, the heading would read “IN THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO” not “in the state of…” And even this is not the worst of it.
Your individual sovereignty as an American, became and remains the private property of people like the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers. It is no exaggeration to say that you are indeed a slave, in the most literal sense of the word. Your U.S. Citizenship identifies you as the private property of receivers of the U.S. bankruptcy, and as a private corporation designated numerically by Social Security and otherwise as your given name printed in all capital letters. (Look at your driver’s license, your credit card, etc. All caps.) American persons were once afforded that which is designated as inalienable by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These sovereign individual rights now remain suspended and superseded, by the privileges and immunities of the incorporated U.S. Citizen, as a matter of public policy...
. . his consolidation of power in the Executive Branch, were only possible because of what was done so many years ago and never reversed.
Article One Section 10 of the US Constitution declares it forbidden to "coin money, emit billes of credit, make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts."
Article One Section 10 of the US Constitution declares it forbidden to "coin money, emit bills of credit, make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts."
The First Bank of the United States was a bank chartered by the United States Congress on February 25, 1791. The charter was for 20 years. The Bank was created to handle the financial needs and requirements of the central government of the newly formed United States. Prior to this, each of the thirteen individual colonies had their own banks, issued their own currencies and had their own financial institutions and policies.
In the last decade of the eighteenth century - 1790s - the United States had just three banks but more than fifty different currencies in circulation: English, Spanish, French and Portuguese coinage, and scrip issued by some of the states. Supporters of the new bank argued that if the nation was to grow and to prosper, it needed a universally accepted standard coinage and this would best be provided by a United States Mint, aided and supported by a national bank. The values of these currencies were wildly unstable and made commerce very difficult. To get the bank bill through the Congress, Hamilton struck a deal with several of its Southern members to support their efforts to move the nation's capital from Philadelphia to the banks of the Potomac. en.wikipedia.org...
This is why JFK issued "Silver Certificates" which were backed in real silver by the US Treasury. Today's currency has no true value, and actually represents debt. The only thing that keeps it afloat, is promises that debt will be repaid. Look into fractional reserve lending.
Article 10 Is Against The States, Not Congress
It declares that 'no state shall coin money, emit bills of credit, make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.' These prohibitions, associated with the powers granted to Congress 'to coin money, and to regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin' most obviously constitute members of the same family, being upon the same subject and governed by the same policy.
The prohibition in the constitution to make anything but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debts is express and universal. The framers of the constitution regarded it as an evil to be repelled without modification; they have, therefore, left nothing to be inferred or deduced from construction on this subject...
They appertain rather to the execution of an important trust invested by the Constitution, and to the obligation to fulfill that trust on the part of the government, namely, the trust and the duty of creating and maintaining a uniform and pure metallic standard of value throughout the Union. The power of coining money and of regulating its value was delegated to Congress by the Constitution for the very purpose, as assigned by the framers of that instrument, of creating and preserving the uniformity and purity of such standard of value...
If the medium which the government was authorized to create and establish could immediately be expelled, and substituted by one it had neither created, estimated, nor authorized -- one possessing no intrinsic value -- then the power conferred by the Constitution would be useless -- wholly fruitless of every end it was designed to accomplish. Whatever functions Congress are, by the Constitution, authorized to perform, they are, when the public good requires it, bound to perform; and on this principle, having emitted a circulating medium, a standard of value indispensable for the purposes of the community, and for the action of the government itself, they are accordingly authorized and bound in duty to prevent its debasement and expulsion, and the destruction of the general confidence and convenience, by the influx and substitution of a spurious coin in lieu of the constitutional currency.
Thus, from diverse pronouncements and opinions of the United States Supreme Court, a steady allegiance to the original and true intent of our founding fathers in reference to the monetary provisions of the U.S. Constitution can be discerned... it was considered heresy to intimate any power in the federal government to issue any paper money. The adherence of the Supreme Court to the intent of the framers must surely have had a beneficial effect upon our nation...