Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[seabass]

>>>Neither Bush nor Cheney is engaged in an attempt to abrogate the Constitution of the United States.<<<


You're probably right about that since they don't have enough time left to trash it entirely. In the meantime though, how the hell do you say with a straight face that these two don't govern with open contempt for the constitution?


"The president claims an inherent power to imprison American citizens whom he has determined to be this country's enemies without obtaining a warrant, letting them hear the charges against them, or following other safeguards against wrongful punishment guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Under his administration, the government has engaged in inhumane treatment of prisoners that amounts to torture — and when Congress passed legislation to ban such treatment, he declared he would simply interpret the law his own way. Although the Constitution says treaties are the "supreme law of the land," the president has abrogated them on his own. And, we now know, he ordered a secret program of electronic surveillance of Americans without court warrants.

But there is something more dangerous than any of these specific abuses and usurpations, and that is the theory of inherent powers that Bush invokes to justify most of these actions"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/21/opinion/main1334435.shtml



The man a heartbeat away from the Oval Office asserts that some rules that apply to everyone else in the executive branch do not apply to him.

Cheney has refused to comply with a request from the National Archives to hand over classified documents. The vice president's office insists that, unlike every other employee of the executive branch, that rule does not include him and his staff."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3316434


So what if they don't officially declare a wish to abrogate the constitution? Ignoring it or forcing WH lawyers to craft cartoonish interpretations of it is less offensive to you?