Timeline of Bill of Rights under Bush
Spring 2001LinkBush administration order authorizes NSA monitoring of domestic phone and internet traffic. Link
May 2001
US Supreme Court rules that medical necessity is not a permissible defense against federal marijuana statutes. Link
October 2006
John Warner Defense Authorization Act is passed. The act allows a president to declare a public emergency and station US military troops anywhere in America as well as take control of state based national guard units without consent of the governor or other local authorities. The law authorizes presidential deployment of US troops to round-up and detain “potential terrorists”, “illegal aliens” and “disorderly” citizenry. Link 1 | Link 2
June 2007
In “Bong Hits for Jesus” case Supreme court rules that student free speech rights do not extend to promotion of drug use. Link
the latest
latest episodes
Unfortunately, every President has supported the War on Drugs and the attending loss of civil rights. This foolishness transcends party lines and unites Democrats and Republicans in shredding the Constitution.
Wait...Does this mean that everything changed before 9/11?
Now just wait for people to argue that Bush has no jurisdiction over the supreme court... -giggle-
For over half of my short life (I am seventeen now) I was a fervent patriot who believed every little thing they fed us in school about America being great and just and righteous. When my parents and grandparents told me about their lives in the USSR and about various relatives of ours getting vanished in the middle of the night and such, I remember feeling so proud of my country: we are better. Things like that don't happen here.
I wish I had anything left to be proud of.
Hmmm.
Jhn Wrnr Ntnl Dfns thrztn ct:
ys (92%): 173 Dmcrts, 224 Rpblcns 1 ndpndnt
Nys (5%): 22 Dmcrts, 1 Rpblcn, 0 ndpndnts
N vt (3%): 6 Dmcrts, 6 Rpblcns, 0 ndpndnts
Th Sprm Crt ws nnms n th cs f ntd Stts vs klnd Cnnbs Byrs. 'd b ntrstd t knw hw nyn thnks Bsh swng tht. Clrly th Md Httr hs vdnc h ds nt wsh t rvl.
Srry Mrk, th ttl shld b "Tmln f Bll f Rghts ndr Dmcrtc Cngrss, Mxd Sprm Crt nd Splt Snt", lthgh dmt tht dsn't hv qt th sm rng t t.
ls, cn't fnd th "rght t smk wd" n th Bll f Rghts.
Rlly, thgh, ths s why t's hrd t tk thngs lk Qstnthrty srsly.
t f th sss tht r lstd, thr r 1 r 2 rlly gd ns wrthy f dbt nd whl lt f nnsns ns tht r xggrtd nd msrprsntd. Thy thnk t mks thr cs strngr whn n fct t mks t sr fr ppl lk m t thrw dscrdt t thr ntr prtn.
f thy'd stck wth th srs cntrl sss nd stp tryng t bld mntn t f mlhll, thy mght ctlly gt smwhr.
"Sorry Mark, the title should be "Timeline of Bill of Rights under a Democratic Congress, a Mixed Supreme Court and a Split Senate", although I admit that doesn't have quite the same ring to it."
Don't apologize, RCM.
Has Congress been controlled by Democrats for both of Bush's terms, as you imply? I didn't know that.
Nrly vry Dmcrt f th 109th Cngrss vtd fr th Jhn Wrnr Ntnl Dfns thrztn ct.
Th Dmcrts nw hv mjrty, bt thy stll vtd n th Prtct mrc ct f 2007, whch sms t ndct tht dmstc wrtppng s ky by thm.
My pnt s smply ths:
Dn't lmp ll th blm n Bsh nly t r-lct sm lcl pltcns (Dmcrt nd Rpblcn lk) wh r pprvng ths blls n th frst plc. Y cn't slv mch by kckng t Bsh. f l Gr hd bn prsdnt, th Jhn Wrnr ct stll wld hv pssd bcs t ws t nnms t vt.
f y wnt t ly blm, thr's plnty t g rnd. S hw yr lcl rprsnttvs vtd n ths sss nd thnk bt tht nxt lctn. Bsh mks nc scpgt bt h's nt th whl f th prblm, r vn th bggst prt f t. Bsh cn't d mch f nythng f th Dmcrtc cngrss nd snt dn't pss ths blls n th frst plc.
The piece is called "Timeline of Bill of Rights under Bush". For those wtih minimal reader comprehension skills, it doesn't say that Bush is personally responsible for all of it. The original title was "under the Bush Administration." That's actually the same thing, unless Bush is literarlly on top of you, in which case, you may think about it differently.
QuestionAuthority expects to be very busy no matter which party is in power. I wrote a long essay about what Bill Clinton did to civil liberties back in 1999.
I believe the author is going to drop by and defend his choices for the timeline so I'll leave it at that. btw, I thought the right to smoke weed was ascribed by jah... Haile Unlikely!
RU
RCM, You're missing the point. This is not an attack on Republicans. The Democrats are as bad as the Republicans when it comes to civil liberties. I remember how awful Louis Freeh was.
Regarding post #5:
What many people actually forget is that the Bill of Rights quite specifically states that if a power is not assigned to the government, the government cannot exercise it.
The proper way of looking at it is: If the Constitution doesn't say that the government can prohibit you from smoking weed, then the government cannot pass laws that prohibit it.
> Also, I can't find the "right to smoke weed" in the Bill of Rights.
I think that's really a different issue. What's being restricted is the right to talk about smoking marijuana from a perspective that supports changing the law and standing behind state's rights to provide medicinal marijuana. The Bong Hits for Jesus ruling would seem to deem doing so as unprotected speech, which is a very slippery slope.
Tht bsclly S my pnt, thgh: thnk thr's rl sbr-rttlng mvmnt whn t cms t G.W. Bsh. Qstnthrty rtcl wth ttl lk, "Bll f Rghts ndr Bsh: Tmln" fds th nt-Bsh frnzy. Bt t wht nd?
Mnwhl, f y mntnd t rsdnt f Clfrn's 1st Dstrct tht Mk Thmpsn ls spprtd th Jhn Wrnr ct, thy'd qt pssbly sy, "Wh?" r, "h, ddn't knw tht." (r, "DWN WTH BSH! DWN WTH BSH! Wht? Mk Thmpsn dd wht? Lk, cn y cm bck ltr? W'r knd bsy hr. DWN WTH BSH! ...")
Myb 'm skng fr t mch. Th ntr cntry cn rlly bhnd htrd fr Bsh, whrs nly th Clfrn 1st Dstrct cn ffr ny vts gnst Thmpsn, jst thnk t's nt bng md clr ngh n th md tht, ll jks sd, th gvrnmnt s mr thn n mn, nd ll f ths prss fcsng n "Bsh" ths nd "Bsh" tht s wht's rlly mssng th pnt.
I agree RCM. Even though Bush is a horrible president, he's had plenty of accomplices from both major parties.
When I visited the Library of Congress some years ago I was particularly impressed by the noble aphorisms which adorned its walls. As an outsider I am bewildered that so many Americans have forgotten one attributed to Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." I imagine it is not on the walls of Congress, but it should be.
> Also, I can't find the "right to smoke weed" in the Bill of Rights.
Then you didn't make it past the Eighth Amendment.
@#11 (REALCATHOLICMEN): "The government is more than one man, and all of this press focusing on "Bush" this and "Bush" that is what's really missing the point."
You're right. The point is this: Impeach Bush. Do it now. Cheney, too, while we're at it.
Downplaying the role of a president who has committed more truly momentous illegal acts (yes, illegal) than any other in history is just silly. These are acts for which he sought no one's approval, certainly not Congress'.
It would be underestimating the extraordinary amount of power the Executive branch has in our democracy, an unpleasant truth which we Americans like to deny to ourselves. And Bush has aggressively expanded that power, ignoring laws, legal precedents, and tradition.
You're right about one thing: the Democrats have become an embarassment to their supporters. But until a better alternative to the Republicans (for whom I have no use whatever) comes along, I will continue to vote for them.
Because that (and I'm sure you'll agree with this at least) is what grown-ups do: the best they can with what they have to work with.
Also, the president is accountable for stuff. If the stuff goes wrong, the pres goes down.
See where this is going? Or at least, should logically go?
There will certainly be other people who should be held accountable as well. This does not mean that the first man, the prime leader, commander and etc. is somehow /not/ to blame.
The denial of medical necessity as a defense means that your government can outlaw medicine that saves lives so that ... why exactly?
Why can your government sentence you to death by denying access to needed medicine? What principle of law or justice requires one to accept one's own suffering and death when such can be prevented by chemistry?
Ignore that its marijuana. Say its a new drug the pharma cos. can't patent or control and thus have induced a majority of Congress to vote to prohibit, although some states have legalized its use. Same result? Why?
And what of pain control? No painkillers for the terminally ill if Congress says so? Why not? How did Congress get the right to deny pain relief to the dying? And medicine for the sick?
To what end have the learned Justices denied medical necessity as a defense to Federal Drug Laws?
(Phil Leggiere, who wrote the article, asked me to post this for him)
Thanks RealCatholicMan. It’s interesting to see how a simple recitation of the public facts about key congressional, executive and Supreme Court actions related to civil liberties in the past few years can stoke such defensive vitriol. But that’s part of the fascination of the exercise. It serves as a kind of cultural Rorschach test about how people perceive the broadening scope of government power over individual citizens that’s been taking place. Many no doubt agree with you that it’s no big deal. Many no doubt are anxious and eager (despite all historical evidence to the contrary) to trust the government not to abuse its ever expanding powers. Hopefully more of us, who take the libertarian (understood beyond the political party of that name) tradition in America seriously, will perceive something is radically off course.
In any case if there’s anything in the record of what’s listed in the timeline that’s actually misrepresented in substance let us know because you failed to that.
As far as your points: re: The John Warner Act. Erosion of civil liberties has been a largely bi-partisan commitment, with the Democrats for the most part (with a few exceptions) indistinguishable from the Republicans (excepting of course Ron Paul). When did we suggest otherwise? That changes nothing about what makes that bad piece of legislation worthy of alarm- the radical broadening of unbounded, unchecked executive power it authorizes to determine, declare and control the terms of martial law, and the further broadening of discretionary use of military forces as domestic police.
It’s more than just a Bush thing, unbelievably bad as this administration has been and is. Civil liberties is a low priority item in Beltway politics as usual and has been for quite some time. That’s why education and agitation about the decline (but hopefully not fall if enough resistance is organized) of the Bill of Rights is going to need to come largely from outside the Beltway.
And, no, there’s no specific mention of the right of smoking weed in the Bill of Rights. There’s also nothing in the constitution about the federal government having the power to outlaw drugs. There is, however, an amendment stating that any powers not given explicitly given to the federal government belong to the states, such as California, in which medicinal marijuana was legal, one the court in its 2001 and 2005 rulings decided wasn't worth taking very seriously.
Per the Supreme Court: Presidents appoint the Justices, and they try to appoint Justices that agree with them ideologically.
Bush did not appoint all of the current Justices, but he has tipped the balance. There are, if I'm not mistaken, 5 conservative Justices on the Court right now. That's a conservative majority. It's no surprise, then, that we're getting conservative decisions.
You can, then, in some sense blame the Executive branch for decisions that these Justices make, since that's what they were put there to do.