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 6)

Zoomba

on Apr 03, 2006

Also, since when does "Take care that..." equal "100% guarantee..."?

stutefish

on Apr 03, 2006

And doesn't he have other responsibilities, as well? Wouldn't Gene's solution of reassigning the military to border patrol duties result in failure to discharge his national security duties?

singrdave

on Apr 03, 2006

COL Gene,
You are wrong.
That's all there is to it. You are just plain wrong. Demonstrably wrong.
See everything I have ever said to you EVER ON ANY TOPIC WHATSOEVER to prove my point.

drmiler

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.

And yet if he added the 10,000 extra border agents, "you'd" be screaming about the national debt increasing to pay for them. So what's it to be?

Daiwa

on Apr 03, 2006

COL Gene,
You are wrong.
That's all there is to it. You are just plain wrong. Demonstrably wrong.
See everything I have ever said to you EVER ON ANY TOPIC WHATSOEVER to prove my point.

COL Gene

on Apr 04, 2006

drmiler

If he added the 10,000 border guards that Bush claims we need he would also be required to provide the money to pay for them. Then we would NOT add to the deficit. The issue here is that we MUST PAY FOR WHAT WE SPEND. Bush ignores that principal and has created a fiscal crisis in the making.

Singrdave

You saying I am wrong mean NOTHING. PROVE IT? I have sighted the basis for my comments. In the case of the enforcement responsibility I gave you the Constitution that in plain English says the President is responsible!

COL Gene

on Apr 04, 2006

To all that tell me I am wrong, please review my Blog that includes my thoughts on Tom delay

Power, Arrogance and Money

By COL Gene
Posted Wednesday, December 21, 2005 on Bush Truth
Discussion: Politics

Today the news documents what may be signs that America is in trouble. Cheney tells us that we need to expand Executive Power and defends the Bush actions of failing to obtain court orders to spy on Americans. Bush claims that his authority as Commander in Chief of our military gives him the power to ignore the law. The AP learned that Tom DeLay received 48 visits to Golf Clubs, 100 flights in corporate jets, 200 stays in world-class hotels and 500 meals at restaurants where dinner for two is about $200 - ALL this paid by corporations that want access and special treatment from our government.

Defenders of the system will claim that has been part of politics in the past which is true. However, the level of the corruption and arrogance of power has NEVER been as great as it appears today. When one group has control with almost absolute power, that power corrupts absolutely.

COL Gene

on Apr 04, 2006

Prove any of these wrong:

HOW IS BUSH DOING?

By COL Gene
Posted Wednesday, March 08, 2006 on Bush Truth
Discussion: Politics

Here is some factual data comparing Dec 2000 with today:

National Debt Dec. 2000 $5.7 Trillion; Feb. 2006 $8.3 Trillion – U.S Treasury dept

Interest on Debt 2000 $230 Billion; 2006 $380 Billion - U.S Treasury

Unemployment rate Dec 2000 3.9%; February 2006 4.7% U S dept of Labor

Trade deficit $370 Billion 2000; $785 Billion 2005 U S Dept of Commerce

Illegal Aliens 8 Million in 2000; 20 million in 2005 Census Dept and Border Patrol

DJBandit

on Apr 04, 2006

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!

Man Col you can really be stupid sometimes. You are the one who calls Bush a "liar". Since when does "not having enough officers" mean that they need 10,000? You see your stupidity shining thru? 1,000 officers could have made a difference so you see, Bush is not necesarily correct. BTW, YOU CAN'T JUST PUT 10,000 PEOPLE TO WORK AND PAY FOR THEM RIGHT OFF THE BACK. iT TAKES TIME AND THE POSITIONS CAN BE FILLED UP LITTLE BY LITTLE TO SEE JUST HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE REALLY NEEDED. 10,000 WAS JUST A FIGURE, A NUMBER TO SHOW AN IDEA OF HOW MANY OFFICERS WERE NEEDED, IT DIDN'T MEAN 10,000 EXACTLY. tHIS IS WHERE YOUR STUPIDITY GLOWS LIKE THE MOON. PERHAPS 5,000 MAY DO THE TRICK, HOW WOULD YOU KNOW? GOSH YOU ARE SO STUPID, CAN'T YOU LEARN TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES? YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND POLITICS OR POLITITIAN FOR CRAP. EVEN I KNOW WHEN THEY STATE PARTICULAR THINGS THAT SOUND EXAGERATED BUT I KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN. CAN YOU SHOW ME A STUDY THAT PROVES WE NEED EXACTLY 10,000 BORDER PATROL OFFICERS LIKE BUSH STATED? OFCOURSE YOU CAN'T CAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH STUDY, BECAUSE YOU CAN BE SO NAIVE AT TIMES.

COL Gene

on Apr 04, 2006

If you believe 1000 added staff will enable us protect the 7,000 mile border it is you that is really stupid. Bush has done NOTHING to protect the border. All Bush is good at is politics.

Adventure-Dude

on Apr 04, 2006

Gene,

You don't think that one person could cover 7 miles of border? What in your mind could one person given 4 wheeler, jeep, etc could cover on the border?

AD

Adventure-Dude

on Apr 04, 2006

Gene,

You don't think that one person could cover 7 miles of border? What in your mind could one person given 4 wheeler, jeep, etc could cover on the border?

AD

Adventure-Dude

on Apr 04, 2006

Blasted Double post please delete

MasonM

on Apr 04, 2006

619 7 Ops. Atty. Gen. 453, 464-65 (1855).

620 Cf. 2 Stat. 78. The provision has long since dropped out of the statute book.

621 Runkle v. United States, 122 U.S. 543 (1887).

622 Cf. In re Chapman, 166 U.S. 661, 670-671 (1897), where it was held that presumptions in favor of official action “preclude collateral attack on the sentences of courts-martial.” See also United States v. Fletcher, 148 U.S. 84, 88-89 (1893); Bishop v. United States, 197 U.S. 334, 341-342 (1905), both of which in effect repudiate Runkle.

The general rule, as stated by the Court, is that when any duty is cast by law upon the President, it may be exercised by him through the head of the appropriate department, whose acts, if performed within the law, thus become the President’s acts.623 Williams v. United States624 involved an act of Congress which prohibited the advance of public money in any case whatever to disbursing officers of the United States, except under special direction by the President.625 The Supreme Court held that the act did not require the personal performance by the President of this duty. Such a practice, said the Court, if it were possible, would absorb the duties of the various departments of the government in the personal acts of one chief executive officer, and be fraught with mischief to the public service. The President’s duty in general requires his superintendence of the administration; yet he cannot be required to become the administrative officer of every department and bureau, or to perform in person the numerous details incident to services which, nevertheless, he is, in a correct sense, by the Constitution and laws required and expected to perform.626 As a matter of administrative practice, in fact, most orders and instructions emanating from the heads of the departments, even though in pursuance of powers conferred by statute on the President, do not even refer to the President.627

623 The President, in the exercise of his executive power under the Constitution, “speaks and acts through the heads of the several departments in relation to subjects which appertain to their respective duties.” The heads of the departments are his authorized assistants in the performance of his executive duties, and their official acts, promulgated in the regular course of business, are presumptively his acts. Wilcox v. McConnel, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 498, 513 (1839). See also United States v. Eliason, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 291 (1842); Williams v. United States, 42 U.S. (1 How.) 290, 297 (1843); United States v. Jones, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 92, 95 (1856); The Confiscation Cases, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 92 (1874); United States v. Farden, 99 U.S. 10 (1879); Wolsey v. Chapman, 101 U.S. 755 (1880).

624 42 U.S. (1 How.) 290 (1843).

625 3 Stat. 723 (1823), now covered in 31 U.S.C. § 3324.

626 42 U.S. (1 How.) at 297-98.

627 38 Ops. Atty. Gen. 457, 458 (1936). And, of course, if the President exercises his duty through subordinates, he must appoint them or appoint the officers who appoint them, Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 109-143 (1976), and he must have the power to discharge those officers in the Executive Branch, Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), although the Court has now greatly qualified Myers to permit congressional limits on the removal of some officers. Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988).

So Gene, even the courts agree you're full of crap.

COL Gene

on Apr 04, 2006

Let’s take a look at 1,000 added guards. First, I doubt that guards operate alone. At the least they most likely operate two at a time for protection. Now that is 500. To cover one post 24 hours per day, 365 days per year with time off for vacation, sick and holidays it takes about 5 people to cover ONE post that takes it down to 100 locations. No I do not think anything like 1,000 are enough. The Bush number was most likely developed by the people most familiar with the job and what it would take to cover the border around the clock. I believe the Senate Bill calls for 12,000 added border guards.

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!