23 January 2006

The meat of the matter: The Fourth Amendment

When he took the U.S. presidential oath of office, George W. Bush did solemnly swear to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

So let's read the Fourth Amendment to that Constitution, which he swore to defend:

-----
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
-----

Hmmmmmmmmm......

1 comment:

  1. The problem with GWB's Oath of Office is that it was not binding. He'd already had the Constitution rewritten for him, so anything that he changed after that was, by default, acceptable.

    He should never have taken office. Plain and simple. People can tell me all they want to get over it, but in 2000, the SCOTUS violated the 10th Amendment and heard Bush v. Gore. It should have, without hearing, simply denied the suit, claiming that Florida had the right to conduct its own election. The case should have been handled in Florida's Supreme Court. (Conversely, Al Gore would have been tainted even if they had ruled in his favor - there simply should have been no ruling.)

    So, Bush had the SCOTUS re-write the Constitution for him. 1/10th of the Bill of Rights was nullified even before he took office. He took an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend'. Had he actually meant to do that, he would have immediately resigned pending a full accounting of the Florida ballots.

    His oath of office is an illusion. He has, from the beginning, shown utter contempt for the Constitution, and proven repeatedly that it is not a document that he is bound by. He has even maneuvered to maintain the subversion of the Consitution by appointing pro-unitary executive justices. He has shaped the courts for decades to come. He may have driven the Republican party into the ground doing it, but I think they believe that even if Democrats take both houses in 2006, and the White House in 2008, that they have enough of a hold on the message that they can regain it all by 2012, and the executive will be even more powerful. They're creating a dictator state out of our republic.

    -pb

    ReplyDelete