Activist President
President Bush is justifying his violations of the Constitution based on two related premises, that the United States is at war and that he will do whatever is necessary to defend the American people.
But that's not his job. The oath he swore upon taking office says:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Not preserve, protect and defend the United States. Not preserve, protect and defend the people of the United States. But preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
That's it. Do the job.
2 comments:
Wow. You've really made a smart, astute point here. Yes, President Bush is "all confused" about what his job is. Can you believe it? I mean, can you BELIEVE that Bush is under the impression that part of his job is to protect the United States? What a moron!
I don't know who you are, but you're such a douche. Do you think you sound intellectual or clever playing the Brady Bunch "exact words" game with the President's oath of office?
Gee, if there's another 9/11 type incident in this country, I WONDER if you'll be among the throngs of whining liberal pussies blaming Bush. Um, OF COURSE YOU WILL.
But if the man thinks it's his job to protect this country from such an attack, you assert that he's "confused" about what his job his, and what his oath meant.
Maybe you should delete your post and make it a little less obvious how fucking stupid and partisan you are with your "clever" observations.
Please don't let the strident tone of my comments here draw your attention away from the fact that I'm completely correct, and that you're a retard.
Well, if his job is to "serve, protect, and defend the Consitution," isn't it a little strange for him to justify bending it (at least) by saying that it's necessary in order to carry out his obligations to protect the American people?
Regarding blaming Bush if there's another attack, it depends, of course. If an attack occurs at a port where people have been pleading for more federal money, I think there will be blame for Bush. If it is an attack that only could have been thwarted by (currently illegal) wiretaps, etc., I predict less blame (from the left). Although, now Bush has put himself in a difficult position, if he is claiming to be doing everything he can to protect us.
Post a Comment