The Constitution of the United States
Article II. - The Executive Branch

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed

Can you read?

Yes Bush is the responsible Federal official that is REQUIRED by the Constitution to enforce the laws. The Federal departments that effect the actual enforcement are direct reports such as Treasury enforces the tax laws. Homeland Security is a direct report to the president and that branch is responsible for Border security. In addition it is the President that sends the Budget Request to Congress and his budget requests have NOT included the needed resources for Treasury and Homeland security to enforce the laws.

"He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"

Good lord, what a scandal. That means that every president has violated the constitution, since one law or another hasn't been executed under every single one.

Don't you feel the slightest bit embarassed by this? Liberals who hate Bush don't even back you when you go this far afield, Col.

Singrdave

Given the scenario of the 1st Sgt -NO he has not committed any offence for that attack.

The issue with Bush is not as any of your examples state. First, Bush is the head of the Executive Branch. The Constitution changes him with the responsibility to, TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUITED.

That requires the President to insure the agencies have the needed resources, that he directs the cabinet officers to fully implement the applicable laws and follows up to insure as the Constitution states the laws BE FULLY EXECUTED.

It is not enough to just tell the Treasury Sec to enforce the Tax laws. The President must provide the resources the Secretary Needs and follows up to insure the Treasury Sec is enforcing the laws. We all know that the tax laws and they laws concerning immigration (Homeland Security) are NOT BEING ENFORCED. Thus, Bush IS NOT meeting his responsibilities under the Constitution! In addition, the resources that Bush himself said were required to control the border for example were never requested in the Budgets Bush sent to Congress. AS my Blog states, Bush is VIOLATING HIS RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION!

Yes to some degree I believe every President has not fully met their responsibilities to enforce our laws.

Today after 9/11 for a President to continue to fail the enforcement of our laws intended to protect our Borders and Ports is not something we can ignore. With the federal deficit as large as it has become under Bush to fail to enforce our tax laws is equally unacceptable. As I said in my Blog, it is TIME for Congress to put Bush on notice to either meet his responsibilities or remove him from office for violating the Constitution.

We brought impeachment proceedings against Clinton for lying about his sex life but will ignore Bush and his failure to protect our country and insure its financial viability.

Bush responsible for aids epidemic in africa!!!!!!!.

Nah....this has already been taken care of....Reagon is the cause of the AIDS epidimic in the world. But, the rest seem spot on, though.

Chris

It is remarkable how the people who support Bush simply ignore the issues that are growing bigger every day. When the next terrorist attack takes place (most experts say it is not if but when and how) I wonder what the excuse will be for not preventing the attack. When investors refuse to buy our debt or drive the interest rate through the roof, I wonder who will get the blame. When the last of the manufacturing and high Tec jobs has been sent to other countries, who will be at fault. When Social Security and Medicare can not fully pay the benefits promised, who shall we blame. I can tell you GWB will have a very large part in ALL these and other issues that will blast our country in the early 21st century!

When the next terrorist attack takes place (most experts say it is not if but when and how) I wonder what the excuse will be for not preventing the attack.

You're the ex-soldier, Gene, you tell us. When you're in-theater, and the next enemy attack takes place (your own S2, your higher command, and your academy training tell you it's not if but when and how), what excuse would you give for not preventing it?

---

People win wars all the time, even though they often lose many battles along the way. It's not a question of "excuses", it's a question of priorities, limited resources, and human weakness.

You have identified real problems, and I know many Bush supporters who take him to task regularly for his failures in these areas. I just don't see these failures as failures to fulfill his constitutional responsibilities. Rather, I see them as failures of the world to be a perfect place full of perfect people with perfect information and perfect resources.

And it's pretty clear that all of Congress agrees with me, since none of them are jumping on your "impeach Bush for not enforcing the tax and immigration laws" bandwagon.

I suspect there's two reasons for this: One, because you don't complain about the lack of enforcement unless you want more enforcement. No politician wants more enforcement these days, for complex and very signficant political and economic reasons.

And two, because enforcement places responsibility on the entire[ chain of command. The president isn't the only one with responsibilities in these areas. A crackdown would end up assigning blame and punishment to everybody involved: presidents, governors, agency heads, field agents, law enforcement officers, etc. It would be a massive witch hunt and blame game. It would cost huge amounts of money, and require huge amounts of resources, and cause huge amounts of upheaval. All this from a country you yourself argue is short on all these things.

So if you feel that the government's limited resources and limited skills should be re-prioritized in this way, fine. But you're going to have to build a stronger case than "OMG teh Constititututiotion!!!111WTFBBQ!!eleven!"

Ideally, your case would include an analysis of the drawbacks of your plan, and would try to convince us that you've forseen these problems and come up with solutions.

The fact is, the president is doing everything he can to discharge his constitutional responsibilities. It's just that "everything he can" is actually not much, both by design of our governmental system, by the nature of our citizenry, and by the nature of the world we live in. The fact is, these laws can't really be enforced much more than they are already, except at great cost and great distress. Which is why most administrations have done little or nothing to improve these issues, as you yourself admit. It's also why this adminstration is struggling to find other ways to solve the problem--ways that are less costly, or less disruptive, or both. Who knows? It may even be the case that the laws themselves are bad, and the solution isn't to enforce them, but to abandon them for other solutions.

---

Why do all your essays start by identifying a problem and stop, one simplistic and underdeveloped paragraph later, by blaming it on Bush?

Bonus question: when Bush leaves office in a couple years, will you move on to blaming the new administration for everything? Or will you change tactics, and blame this adminstration for the next one's problems? And if it's the latter, how will you explain why you didn't blame the Clinton administration's for Bush's problems?

My compliments to you, stutefish.

You absolutely nailed him. A big insightful from me.

stutefish

I agree with part of what you had to say. It is priorities. As to Bush doing everything he can I could not disagree with you more. In some of my Blogs I have looked at priorities. For example - If we balanced the budget we could use all the trillions of dollars we will spend in interest, that buys us NOTHING, to help fund Social Security and Medicare during the retirement of the boomers. We could have used the most recent $12 Billion in tax cuts to BIG OIL to rebuild the levies in New Orleans. We could have used what we have and will spend in Iraq to rebuild the infrastructure of this country. The priority of Bush was to give tax cuts to people and industries that did not need the money and neglect much more urgent needs. Rather then protect our borders and ports, we spend billions of dollars each week on an unnecessary war and have enabled a sectarian conflict to develop in Iraq. We never finished the job in Afghanistan because we were bent of attacking Iraq which at the time we attacked them WAS NOT part of the War On terrorism.

Bush said is very well on October 20, 2004 when he addressed a wealthy group of his supporters in New York. He said- this is an impressive crowd - the haves and have-mores. Some people call you the elites, I call you my base. There in a nut shell are the Bush priorities. He has done everything to benefit HIS BASE and in so doing has sacrificed the middle income and poor in America. He has exchanged short term wealth for his wealthy Base and mortgaged the long term future of our country. How could anyone justify borrowing money, paying interest on that money to give people that need NOTHING more money via tax cuts? YES it is PRIORITIES!

Obviously, Gene, you have absolutely no sense of humor and wouldn't know a joke if it slapped you in the face.

I do not consider what Bush is doing to our country anything but a tragity!

To show you I enjoy a good joke here is one for you.

Bush, Cheney and Rummy were on Air Force One.

Bush tossed a $1,000 dollar bill out the plane and said someone will be happy.

Cheney took out 10 $100 dollar bills and said now 10 people will be happy.

Rummy took out 100 $10 dollar bills and tossed them out and said now 100 people will be happy.

The pilot turned to the co-pilot and said if I bank this plane hard and toss all three of them out, millions will be happy!

Sodaiho: Well, I see people doing just that in the fields along the Rio Grande every season.

I live in cotton country, and they use automated machines to do the picking, sodaiho. While it is quite possible you have found the few exceptions, it is unlikely, as the cotton industry is one of the most tightly regulated agricultural industries in the US. There are no "small farmers" in the business.

Sodaiho: Misinformed? I'll tell that to the Border Patrol Officer the next time I go through the checkpoint. As to effectiveness: there are tons of busses in New Mexico carting illegals back across the border from all over the inside of this state. I agree with you that the money to operate these checkpoints might be better spent closer to the actual border.

Right. 11 million illegals in the US speaks to the efficacy of that checkpoint, don't it, now?

Sodaiho: Yeppers. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

That's what we should use as a starting point in this debate, then.

The nature of the policies Bush is following, especially his fiscal policy will ensure the consequences will be around for decades. It took 20 years to balance the budget after Regan. It will take even more to recover from Bush.

We brought impeachment proceedings against Clinton for lying about his sex life but will ignore Bush and his failure to protect our country and insure its financial viability.

That's it. You've gone round the bend! Your right to breath has been revoked!

We brought impeachment proceeding against Clinton for LYING UNDER OATH! Because it was about his sex life is immaterial!

The Constitution of the United States Article II. - The Executive Branch Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed Can you read?

Are YOU capable of understanding anything? While he is in the end responsible. It is the HEAD of the individual agencies that are responsible for upholding the law. NOT BUSH!

Hay Drmiler

HE (The President) SHALL TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED. What about that do you not understand. Bush is responsible. The Buck stops in his office per OUR CONSTITUTION! If one of his subordinates does not do their job it is the president's responsibility to replace them and get someone that will do their job.