Bush is Violating the Constitution

He is not enforcing our laws

Published on March 31, 2006 By COL Gene In Politics

There is talk as to why we need new immigration laws since the laws currently on the books are not being enforced. Laws that require employers to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. Laws that require Federal withholding taxes. Laws regarding legal entry into the United States. Why do we have laws on the books that are not being enforced? What makes anyone believe any new laws passed by Congress to control illegal immigration will be enforced? Who is responsible to enforce our federal laws? Answer The President. Below is the exact section and statement from our Constitution that REQUIRES the President to enforce the laws passed by Congress.
It is time for Bush to enforce our laws or for Congress to remove him from office for violating the Constitution of the United States!
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

Comments (Page 5)

COL Gene

on Apr 03, 2006

Talking about stupid. Bush has cost America Trillions in losses. Iraq and the national debt. When you call me stupid, you show your ignorance. The issues I bring up including this one are biased of FACTS so what you are saying in this case is the Constitution is stupid.

DJBandit

on Apr 03, 2006

Like I said before, believe what you want Col, this country does not run on the beliefs of a single person. Most people here have, time and time again, defeated you in debate and you refuse to lose. You, as an American, have the right to believe what you want and stand for what you want, that, however, does not make you right. The day you learn to listen to others and at least think about what they had to say, and maybe give a little credit where credit is due then maybe you can be taken seriously here. There are a few people here who do not like Bush's policies and will debate honorably about it, I have yet to see any of them back anything you have to say, except the occational rant back at someones response to you.

Stick to what you are good at, reporters don't tell the true, they tell what sells, that's how book sales work as well. Keep writing your stories on hard copies and stealing the money from people so that you can continue to complain about stupid things and make more money off of it, cause in the end, just like everything else in life, all of your BS comes down to selling your book and making money. The true is not what's important or the American people to you, it's the money. Plain and simple. Say what you want but that, my friend, is the true and you proved it when you started talking about you new book on another articleand how you like quoting yourself in the books.

COL Gene

on Apr 03, 2006

My book uses Facts from sources that only a truly stupid person would consider inaccurate. In this Blog it is OUR Constitution. I did not paraphrase the Constitution I gave you the EXACT wording and you still say I am stupid. When I sight the data from the Treasury of the U S about the deficit, the increased interest on the national debt you attack me. When I provide studies like the added debt that would result from making the tax cuts permanent the way Bush wants, you ignore the studies. It is very clear the way in which Bush and those that support him use the very same tactics. Whenever ANYONE provides factual information or expert opinion or studies that show the policies we are following are not helping our country the approach is either to attack the person using the facts or change the subject. Never do you or Bush refute the data with equally factual arguments. When you say I am this or that you are saying the very same thing about the data being used to justify my argument. All that does is show YOUR Stupidity and dogmatic support of policies that the facts demonstrate ARE NOT WORKING! All this shows the truth in the saying, Birds of a feather flock together!

DJBandit

on Apr 03, 2006

Whenever ANYONE provides factual information or expert opinion or studies that show the policies we are following are not helping our country the approach is either to attack the person using the facts or change the subject.

Ever notice that you do the exact same thing? Have you noticed that's exactly whats been going on in this article? People here provide factual information or expert opinion or studies that contradict what you say and all you can do is either attack the person or change the subject. THAT is why I call you stupid. You complain about the same thing you do.

Never do you or Bush refute the data with equally factual arguments.

You know I can't help but saying this "SCREW YOU". Several times have many people here refuted over and over again your articles. But you chose to ignore them and continue to use that same old broken record rutine. This also makes you stupid.

COL Gene

on Apr 03, 2006

No one has refuted the basic section I included from the constitution. You read that the Constitution requires the President to Faithfully enforce the laws and then tell me that he is not responsible to enforce the laws. That is pure nonsense.

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 03, 2006

So, you should be CHEERLEADING the NSA wiretaps, COL, using your logic.

Zoomba

on Apr 03, 2006

Your problem is an overly literal translation of those laws. Yes, it is his responsibility to take care that the laws are enforced. Any President does that by appointing heads of agencies, cabinet members, political advisors etc. From there, work is futher divided up and spread to the lower levels and down the chain.

There is a limited number of items we can focus on at any one time. And there's the consideration of what is most feasable to work on. We can't cover each and every one of everyone's "hot topic" items. To some people, Iraq is at the top of their priority lists. For others, it's outsourcing, or border patrols or general immigration regulation. Some think it's imperative that we have an amendment that outlaws gay marraige. Then there's those that want to overturn Roe v Wade and turn the issue over to the states again.

There are thousands upon thousands of laws in the US. Does each and every one boil up to Bush? Is it Bush's fault that the speed limit isn't absolutely and completely enforced on our nation's highways? Doesn't that present a HUGE safety risk to people traveling each and every day?

If local border patrols and checkpoints aren't doing their job well enough, it boils to their supervisors, who need to request resources from their supervisors etc until it boils up to Congress. Bush can request anything he likes, but ultimately Congress decides where the money goes. Bush could veto a bill, and Congress could just override the veto. Would it still be Bush's fault if they overrode a veto on a bill you didn't like?

The US Constitution also wasn't written with the expectation that our system of laws and the complexity of our system would grow to what it is today. Yes, it works as a framework, but there were assumptions made in the writing that no longer hold true. TO the framers, the idea of a career politician was a farce. To them, God did factor into policy decisions (as a matter of doing "good"). To them, slaves were OK, and the non-land-owning populace didn't deserve to directly vote.

COL Gene

on Apr 03, 2006

Bush has stated that to secure the Border it will require an additional 10,000 guards. Then please explain WHY in the four budgets since 9/11 Bush has not requested the money to hire the 10,000 additional guards HE TELLS US ARE REQUIRED? If Bush asked Congress for the money to hire the 10,000 added guards to protect our borders, do you really believe Congress would not provide the money?

Zoomba

on Apr 03, 2006

The Dems in Congress would try to burry the bill in committee or fillibuster the bill just because it had Bush's name on it.

DJBandit

on Apr 03, 2006

Col, stop already, this is starting to get annoying. Just because Bush said there was a need to have 10,000 border patrols does not mean that he would rush to get all 10,000 at once. Things are done at a pace, little by little, not to mention that, as you so repeatedly like to say, where are we gonna get the money from? Things take time, you somehow believe Bush should have gotten all this done in his first years as President. As usual you just keep making yourself look more and more stupid and wonder why I call you stupid.

DJBandit

on Apr 03, 2006

This coming from a guy who claims Bush is a lier, so how come you believe him when he said 10,000 border patrol officers? Your full of crap Col and you can't get away with it anymore.

stutefish

on Apr 03, 2006

Just end the Iraq occupation and employ the Active forces as needed to control the border. We could also provide the 10,000 added border guards Bush said were needed.

Gene, what practical problems do you think this proposal would have, and how would you fix them?

COL Gene

on Apr 03, 2006

DJBandit

Are you calling Bush a liar? Bush came up with that number and the head of the Border Patrol has been on TV many times confirming that they do not have the number of guards needed to secure the border. Thus, it seems Bush must be correct. So WHY THEN has Bush not requested the funding for these new guards? I guess you have no logical answer to that question!

By the way I believe the word is LIAR not LIER.

Daiwa

on Apr 03, 2006

Bush is not a CEO, Gene. He's an elected President. Experience as one may help being the other, but they are entirely unrelated. There is no President, ever, who wouldn't "have to go" by your standard. Things were going pretty badly in 1861, so I suppose Lincoln "should have gone." Apparently, J.W. Booth agreed with you.

There is nothing, no fact, no premise, no rumor, that is of any use to you unless it can be used in the service of trashing George Bush. Such a monomaniacal obsession cannot be healthy, and must of necessity cloud your judgment so much as to render your arguments ignorable.

COL Gene

on Apr 03, 2006

Daiwa

Facts are Facts. We are not protecting our borders. We are not enforcing immigration laws. The national debt has gone from $5.7 Trillion to $8.3 Trillion under the fiscal policies of this administration. The trade Deficit has more then doubled since Jan 2001. Yes I have pointed out the impact of the policies we are following. Yes they are not benefiting our country. Since these are the results of the Bush policies that he has gotten through Congress, WHO do you believe is responsible? What is not healthy are the consequences of the policies we are following in almost ever problem area in our country. Making believe these things are not taking place will not eliminate their negative impact on our country! Most CEO's are elected by a board of Directors. Bush is the head of the Executive Branch and in many respects has authority far beyond ANY other executive in the private sector.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!