How has Pres. Bush infringed on the bill of rights?
403210
He hasn't.  If anyone says otherwise, it's only their opinion.
781259
Simple, all of the Bush lies, and the Republican corruption of this entire Administration. America wasn't enjoying the Bush Dictatorship very much. Myself, I believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights before George Bush and the Cretans started rewriting it to the best of their convenience. The Democrats have a lot of undoing to administer with the Bush legislature currently imposed, and 300 plus signing statements made to our Constitution. Thank God is still in charge!!!
440020
I really think the George Bush administration has sent America backwards 50 years. I don't have to go into all of the obvious inflation. Bush hasn't vetoed any spending legislation, or any legislation at all. It's all poor leadership.
154150
Absolutely. The USA PATRIOT Act violated the amendment. As did Bush's wiretapping.
318926
Actually, the US Supreme Court has NOT addressed warrantless wiretaps as they are being done by Bush. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has said (see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld) that the current poltiical situation is "not a blank check" for the President to do anything he wants, regardless of existing laws.\n\nIn fact, there are two reasons why warrantless wiretapping is not authorized, and is explicitly illegal under specific laws that were intended to cover this exact situation.\n\nFirst, FISA passed by Congress thirty years ago explicitly states the conditions under which surveillance can be conducted, and was passed specifically to address monitoring of US citizens communicating with people in another country, where one or more were suspected of being a threat. FISA requires that even in an emergency, the wiretapping agency get a warrant from a judge within 72 hours AFTER the tap is initiated. This defeats any argument made about their not being enough time to act within the bounds of law, and Bush has admitted that he's never even applied for the warrants afterwards in an attempt to obey with the law.\n\nInterestingly, some of big names opposing FISA being passed thirty-years ago include Bush Sr., Rumsfeld and Cheney. So, they were told, by Congress explicitly, that they ideas about inherent presidential authority were wrong. So, not only is Bush breaking the law, but he's breaking a law that was specifically set up to govern this very action, after his top advisors were told what the law was in this exact situation.\n\nSecond, there is the ridiculous claim that Bush is acting under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which the administration argues implicitly allows such actions. However, the AUMF is two paragraphs long, and states only that Bush is authorized to send military troops to Afghanistan, pursuant to the War Powers Act.\n\nWhat does the War Powers Act say? It limits presidential authority to send troops or deploy domestic assets unless authorized by Congress (since only Congress can declare war, and only Congress has jurisdiction for making domestic laws). The War Powers Act also specifically says that the President does not get any implied powers under this law, and that the President must obey all existing laws even when exercising explicit powers.\n\nYou can't claim implied powers based on a law that says "no implied powers". That's basic legal theory 101. It's like trying to argue it doesn't count as treason because the traitor chooses to call it something else. Performing actions that explicitly breaking laws that were intended to cover this exact situation is breaking the law, pure and simple.
394989
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has conspired to exceed his constitutional authority to wage war, in that:\n\nOn March 19, 2003, George W. Bush invaded the sovereign country of Iraq in direct defiance of the United Nations Security Council. This constitutes a violation of  Chapter 1, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter and a violation of Principal VI of the Nuremberg Charter. According to Article VI of the United States Constitution "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;". George W. Bush has thus acted in violation of the supreme Law of the Land by the following acts:\n\n   1. Invading Iraq with United States military forces.\n   2. Sacrificing the lives of thousands of American troops.\n   3. Killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and conscripts.\n   4. Rejecting possibilities for peaceful resolution of the conflict by rejecting acts of compliance by Saddam Hussein with the United Nations Resolutions, and ignoring the findings by Hans Blix that inspections were working to disarm Iraq.\n   5. Violating the Geneva Convention by abducting and transporting human beings to prisons in foreign countries where they can be tortured and subjected to inhumane treatment.\n Now do you think he is a good President ?? I don't think so!! I would say anyone but him would be a good Pesident!!
899501
There is a law against threatening the president but condoning it is another thing. The United States has freedom of speech and I don't think it is illegal to say that he deserved it  because everyone has different feelings and opinions about the president. If you are right then we do not have any freedom of speech rights in the US.
790041
Bush's characteristics are eerily similar to a dictator.\n\nIt's not ok,and its not ok for Republicans to walk all over our American rights!
907997
He is the president still. He has a right to veto anything he does not agree with or if he feels it is not in the best interest of America.
733417
Bush challenges hundreds of laws\nPresident cites powers of his office\nBy Charlie Savage, Globe Staff  |  April 30, 2006\nWASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.\nAmong the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.\nLegal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.\nFormer administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.\nBut with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override.\n   \n\nFar more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.\nMany legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.\nPhillip Cooper, a Portland State University law professor who has studied the executive power claims Bush made during his first term, said Bush and his legal team have spent the past five years quietly working to concentrate ever more governmental power into the White House.\n''There is no question that this administration has been involved in a very carefully thought-out, systematic process of expanding presidential power at the expense of the other branches of government," Cooper said. ''This is really big, very expansive, and very significant."\nFor the first five years of Bush's presidency, his legal claims attracted little attention in Congress or the media. Then, twice in recent months, Bush drew scrutiny after challenging new laws: a torture ban and a requirement that he give detailed reports to Congress about how he is using the Patriot Act.\nPage 2 of 7 -- \nBush administration spokesmen declined to make White House or Justice Department attorneys available to discuss any of Bush's challenges to the laws he has signed.\nInstead, they referred a Globe reporter to their response to questions about Bush's position that he could ignore provisions of the Patriot Act. They said at the time that Bush was following a practice that has ''been used for several administrations" and that ''the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution."\nBut the words ''in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution" are the catch, legal scholars say, because Bush is according himself the ultimate interpretation of the Constitution. And he is quietly exercising that authority
327431
Yes the President doesn't have the power to change the laws anyway. the Catholics have apposed abortion for ever and nothing has ever been done about it. The smoke screen is this new Act the Bush Administration is trying to sneak in under the table, like the criminals they are. The Constitution Restoration Act written by Pat Robertson & Jerry Falwell. This takes away the rights of the African American and the minority population to put white extreamists (Evangelist Churches) in constant power in the U.S.. You need to read it. It's another Patriot Act that steals Americans rights away.
822054
You just have to read each of the amendments, and do it yourself. Then look on line for summaries and explanations, (search "bill of rights", "US constitution")then just rephrase.
97189
There is authority in the Bill of Rights to protect you from forced consent to certain things (search and seizure, quartering troops, etc).  But anything else is up for argument.
181106
see:\nhttp://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
655703
So you're all over this Bill now. Funny you didn't even know about it until a few days ago. Someone gave it as an answer to one of your stupid questions. \n\nAnd in any case, attacking Clinton gets you no where. He's old news, he's gone. But I don't see you coming up with justifications for the war crimes and loss of liberties happening now. All you have is inane diatribes that make you the butt of your own joke. And all this Directed at kids that barely know better. Go argue where the big boys play and lets see how much you laugh.
509959
I also think in terms of... what is America founded on... and how to maintain these freedoms that we hold so dear... some of the things this administration has done (wiretapping, CIA leak) verge on un-American... and this is the president, the man elected to represent America... it's just sad...\n\nI also fear that a future president may take Bush's interpretation of the constitution and stretch it even more... in other words, Bush is  undermining the constitution and that could have horrible effects down the road if future presidents continue to undermine it...
400702
constitution and Bill of rights