Has the Bush administration actually violated the constitution? Aside from Habeas Corpus, and what is the evidence for that?

Never you mind.

Don’t look to close at our pres. You might discover much more than you want to know.

The following webpages all make claims that Bush violated such provisions of the constitution as the “illegal search and seizure” clause, the “equal protection” clause, and several others (I’m just passing this on; I’m not enough of a legal expert to judge the validity of these claims).

http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/articles.html
http://www.wildnesswithin.com/impeachhim.html
http://www.davidswanson.org/?q=node/1207
http://www.globalpolitician.com/23523-bush

Aside from Habeas Corpus?!?!? This is the most important protection any “free” society can have. They can now throw you in jail and not give you a reason or real and fail trial. As far as I am concerned, nothing else really matters. This doesn’t just violate the Constitution, but the Magna Carta as well.

There also was no official declaration of war in Iraq through Congress.

I dont think so. He did not violate Habeas Corpus either. People who are not American are not protected by her Constitution in my opinion. Those rights would fall under Genevia Convention Rules which by the way are not there either. As a veteran of war I say get the job done in any means possible because the enemy doesn’t follow the rules. Unless you have been in combat you would not understand.

From the recent Supreme Court majority opinion issued last week affirming the right of Guantanamo prisoners to Habeas Corpus:

“Petitioners have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus. They are not barred from seeking the writ or invoking the Suspension Clause’s protections because they have been designated as enemy combatants or because of their presence at Guantanamo…
The government’s argument that the Clause affords petitioners no rights because the United States does not claim sovereignty over the naval station is rejected”.

The SC also granted the prisoners the Geneva Conventions…so what. The GCs also expressly state who and who is not protected by them, and the SC disregarded them as well.

Yeah, and did you see the way the Court just interpreted the 2nd amendment as meaning an individual right to bear arms??!! Someone needs to keep an eye on these guys! They’re taking all kinds of liberties with the Constitution ~

That’s because the 2nd amendment is an individual right to bear arms. Just like freedom of speech is an individual right. Just like the 4th amendment is an individual right. If you were to have made the 2nd a collective right, you would have had to change the 1st and 4th because they all have the “of the people” language in them.

Hmm… guess those justices must be pretty smart after all.

Just like when they allowed governments the ability to take private land and give it to private developers under emminent domain?

Down with the Court!!!

You get right on that…

OR…we could fill it with conservatives, that way it won’t be so political.

OR…we could make the whole damn thing nonpartisan…revolutionary to say the least!

Yeah, as long as we can find a good conservative to decide when they’re being non-partisan.

Where was that implied?

You seem to be advocating a “constructionist” judiciary, one that adheres strictly to the text of the constitution and refrains from drawing any inferences from it (or do I misread you?).

If so, then I would point out that this is considered to be a conservative political position:
(per Wikipedia) ”‘Strict constructionism’ is also used in American political discourse as an umbrella term for conservative legal philosophies such as originalism and textualism, which emphasize judicial restraint and fidelity to the original meaning (or originally intended meaning) of constitutions and laws.”

So aren’t you proposing that the Supreme Court should adhere to conservative ideals? How do we ensure that?

I would imagine in a way that I am, I guess…if I don’t misread you.

So, just to clarify, you’re arguing for a Court that’s at the same time conservative and “non-partisan”?

I’m arguing that SC Justices shouldn’t have any political agenda when they’re working.

Alexander Hamilton described the role of the court this way: “The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.”

Even in Hamilton’s time, it was recognized that there would be room for interpretation of the Constitution. That interpretation, according to Hamilton, belongs to the justices. But you seem to be saying that there is some objective, “non-political” standard by which their interpretations should be measured. If that were the case (and I’m not sure what that standard would be), then the interpretation wouldn’t really belong to the justices, would it?

I’m saying that they should read it more objectively and less subjectively.

I think that’s code for “my understanding of the constitution is the right one and when the Court agrees with me they’re being objective and non-political, but when they don’t they’re being activist”.

So you wouldn’t mind the government taking your property to turn it into condos? They really did a good thing by letting governments take away people’s property to hand it over to private developers. You may think that it’s code for something but it’s not. The SC has no business in interpreting the Geneva Conventions of War, the Swiss Authority has that covered. Period.

Whether we mind it or not is irrelevant. The court has lots of built-in insulation between us and them for a very good reason. The Court should never, ever have to take into account what Harp or winblowzxp or anybody else thinks they should do,