Does President George W. Bush hold secret contempt for the Constitution?

I recently found a claim that in December 2005, as President Bush sought to get the Patriot Act renewed and an aide angered him over the bill's constitutionality, President Bush exclaimed, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamn piece of paper!"


Although I find this difficult to believe, I have found numerous references. Capitol Hill Blue, a website described as "conservative" allegedly reported it originally on 9 December 2005. The reporter, Doug Thompson, confirmed the incident with three individuals present at the meeting.


If this report is true, it suggests our current executive is less than serious about his primary responsibility: to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If true, why have we heard so little about it, and why our other national leaders, both Dem %26amp; Rep, remained silent?


http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/pu...


http://www.comlinks.com/polintel/pi05121...

Does President George W. Bush hold secret contempt for the Constitution?
Hello James,





This is a great question; and like all such questions It's difficult to answer. Let me say a few things as preface...





Actually, I think this IS about the Constitution. While I respect the document and its creators, I don't share your enthusiasm for it as being nearly perfect. In fact, I believe it was the 18th century's best attempt at republican government, but today is a document that impedes meaningful policy promulgation, and all but guarantees blandness, scapegoating, and the increasing power of special interests.





Did George Bush say it? Obviously I wasn't there; but I have little doubt that he did. And furthermore, his comments actually did receive widespread media coverage with the Democrats lambasting him for it.





Was it an outburst of the moment? I think so. However, I also believe it reveals a deeper truth of the man's lack of understanding and appreciation for the document. That said, it should be noted that history offers examples of Chief executives going well beyond the Constitution (Such as President Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus in Maryland in the opening days of the Civil War).





Historians have recognized that sometimes it is necessary to go beyond the Constitution in order to save it. This is a paradox created by the facts of war. There has to be (absolutely MUST be) a different set of criteria by which we judge executive action in peace and war.





With Presidents such as Lincoln and FDR, the wars were palpable and the threats absolute; and that is why historians give them the benefit of the doubt. For Bush the treats are just as real, but the situation is not absolute. The war on terrorism is a "twilight conflict" in which the nation finds itself in neither in peace nor declared war. This is the cause of his frustration.





During times of declared war, according to Harvard Law Professor, Arthur Miller, the President acts as a "Constitutional Dictator." This is neither unprecedented nor alarming. As Supreme Court Justice, Robert Jackson wrote so many years ago, still must be said today -- "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."





When dealing with national security issues, terrorism and the threats of imminent attack, all of the niceties of Due Process cannot always be adhered to. It is worth noting that the reason 9-11 occured in the first place was that Attorney General Ashcroft would not allow agents to seach a computer belonging to Zacharias Moussouie, because of the Due Process considerations. If they had done so, the whole plan could have been thwarted before it happened.





I don't know if you've spent any substantial time in (or working with) the military. In peacetime, the military operates under strict rules, regulations and procedures. However, in times of war, the rulebook is the first thing that's thrown overboard.





(I NEED THAT HILL TAKEN BY16:00 HOURS, AND I DON'T GIVE A DAMN HOW YOU DO IT). That's the reality of combat -- not rules and regs, but getting the job done, because if you don't, you lose, and people die. All warfare is chaos, and the ability to capitalize on chaos. If you cannot act in a flexible, innovative and speedy manner, you lose -- that's it, James -- that's the bottom line.





What concerns Bush the most is that another 9-11 NOT happen on his watch. I beg you not to be offended by this James, but it's easy to be a Constitutional purist when you're sitting in the cheap seats -- not so easy when the responsibility and blame for attacks on American cities falls on you.





I'm no fan of George W. Bush, and do not believe that history is going to be kind to him. But I do understand the dilemma he faces. It's not that he's indifferent about the Constitution, but that he's genuinely frustrated by the constitutional strictures that prevent him from doing his job in the way that needs to be done. From his vantage point, the threats are as real as they were to Lincoln and Roosevelt; but he doesn't have the flexibility to devise stratagies that they would have had no problems enacting.





The way he sees it is the American people want him to perform a high-wire balancing act while wearing a straight-jacket and lead boots.





I don't know if this answers your question; but I hope at least that it gives you another perspective. Cheers, mate.
Reply:Jack's one hell of a historian and I am glade we have him here at YAHOO answers to keep those of us who take our history seriously, honest. Report It

Reply:I doubt he has contempt for the Constitution, if the comment was true it more likely came from his frustation of not being able to get anything done. His government's incompetence has shown that over and over again.
Reply:yeah I think he does. before jan. 2009 he will declare himself dictator and do away with it completely
Reply:Clearly, Bush does have nothing but contempt for the Constitution. How else do you explain his doing away with habeas corpus? Or his bullying Congress into getting what HE wants, like starting an illegal war in Iraq?
Reply:I'm sure Bush went in believing in it.....His handlers have never liked our Constitution or our Sovereignty.......
Reply:hey...the moment anything is perfect than you can stop bitching about it....our constitution= not perfect...
Reply:Nice job..you just revisited the op-ed of every newspaper


and CNN show from Dec. 2005..





could we find something fresh..





Like questioning..





by assuming the role the Policeman in Iraq...how can we


assume any position of diplomacy?





the police are never a factor in affairs of State.
Reply:Actually he is right, it is just a piece of paper, it is what people do that counts.


Like a marriage certificate is just a piece of paper, but what the husband and wife do is what counts.
Reply:Secret?





I wouldn't call it secret.





He's made his utter contempt for the Constitution he swore to uphold, protect, and defend pretty clear these 6 years.





But to address the quote, yes, I've seen this, too.





There is no doubt in my mind that it accurately expresses his attitude.





We've heard little about it because the media and officials of both parties have been too busy drinking his brand of Kool Aide.





Disgusting, isn't it?
Reply:Bush is not above the U.S. Constitution. period.
Reply:When was the last time we had a President who respected the Constitution?





Anyone who signs budgets containing unconstitutional programs such as social security, affirmative action, etc... has contempt for the constitution in my opinion.
Reply:It's no secret.
Reply:I don't know if GWB hold contempt for the constitution so I won't even go there. I have no doubt whatsoever that this president is capable of referring to the constitution as "just a goddam piece of paper."





I do, however think that both the Constitution and the Bible aren't friends of the Republican party. Both state that people are more important than material profits, there should be oversight and accountability ... Therefore the Republicans want to dismantle the Constitution for their own self-serving causes.





In the case of the Bible, the Republicans hate the passage that quotes the words of Jesus... "Whatever you do for the least of my brothers, that you do unto me". How does that fit into their scheme of catering to the welfare of the rich on the backs of the poor and middle classes?