Bush Says stop throwing the constitution in my face

[Rosetteismyname]

Run time: 01:30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPBxL0ozH5I   Posted on YouTube: October 25, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: December 08, 2008 By DU Member: Rosetteismyname Views on DU: 1105

 
My sources for this are as follows.Many independent sources quoted Bush for saying that including
www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/a rticle_7779.shtml except factcheck.org refuted it, so that is why I use the word IF in his case As for the quotations on the Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Both of my sources are from two educational institutions
http://www.ur.umich.edu/0405/Nov22_04/13.shtml University of Michigan
http://www.uvm.edu/theview/article.php?id=1389 University of Vermont
If you don't know what Senate Bill 1959 is, you should research it because the Patriot Act doesn't hold a candle to it on how bad it is.What does the constitution mean?
While mainstream media ignores if Bush said, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, Bush screamed back. Its just a goddamned piece of paper"(but I think we all agree to the cliche, ACTIONS speak louder than words)-The University of Vermont quoted Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, say "My Constitution produces a very flexible system. (i thought it is was a contract with america)he continues, You create rights the way most rights are created in a democracy. You can change it if your first thought produces a result that you dont like. The living constitution thats not a flexible system. ---Oh i didn't know that the constitution was supposed to do the splitz and have backbends? or be like silly puddy"The University of Michigan quotes him saying ""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." "We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones. Don't think that it's a one-way street."In response to a question about the 2000 election, he said, "This is four years and an election ago. Get over it."

[Jack Rabbit]

1. Welcome to DU

OK, I have no use for Scalia's "originalist" doctrine. Tell me what the Founding Fathers thought of electronic wiretapping.

[Rosetteismyname]

2. thanks!

You ask "What did the founding fathers think of electronic wiretapping?"

While it is of course apparent that they did not count on technology - it is apparent that they wanted us to have the 4th amendment, which requires due process.

Due process is supposed to be an inalienable right that the Patriot Act has removed from us, along with the Military Commission Act.

[Jack Rabbit]

3. I was a rhetorical question, of course.

Another constitutional originalist, former AG Ed Meese, argued that the courts could not rule on such things as wiretaps because the Founding Fathers couldn't have had an opinion on it. Thus, he concluded, the government could do what it wants.

That's a terrible reading of the Constitution even by originalist standards, but maybe that's what Scalia means by a "flexible" constitution.

I believe in a flexible Constitution, just not the way Ed Meese meant it.

Interestingly, one of the Founding Fathers who are for a strict and narrow (as opposed to "flexible") interpretation of the constitution was Thomas Jefferson. It's an argument he lost, and one of the few he put forward that I'm glad he lost. Jefferson himself admitted defeat on the point when, in 1803, he purchased the Louisiana Territory, something the Constitution does not explicitly permit the government to do.

Hamilton, an advocate of both a flexible Constitution and strong executive power, nevertheless saw the possibility of presidential tyranny not unlike what we've had the last eight years. He thought that any president who exceeded his authority the way Bush did would surely have been impeached and removed, as Bush richly deserved to be. We should be thankful that Scalia and Meese are in the minority among constitutional scholars and that most see a living Constitution as the flexible one, at least flexible enough to adapt to new technology and recognize a warrantless wiretap as an illegal search and a violation of the Fourth Amendment.