Santa Claus Delivers 37,000+ Copies of Constitution to President Bush

Santa Claus Delivers 37,000+ Copies of Constitution to President Bush

www.ccrjustice.org

Kringle Hopes President Can Find Time to Read Document, Abide by Its Laws

December 20, 2007, Washington, DC – This morning, Santa Claus (in the person of noted constitutional lawyer Bill Goodman) drove his sleigh to the White House to deliver thousands of copies of the U.S. Constitution to President Bush.

Americans from all over the country – more than 37,000 of them – asked that a copy of the Constitution be delivered to the President in their name and cordially requested that he make time in his busy schedule to read it.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Greetings...

The President needs to be reminded of what the Constitution is and what it stands for... He is sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution, and his continued abuse of it is unacceptable...

www.ccrjustice.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

Mod Edit: ATS And Activism – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 22/12/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Bush doesn't care.

He answers to a higher power than some “damned scrap of paper,” that is; his corporate masters.

Besides, for him to read the Constitution would hinge upon him being able to mouth through all those big, difficult words, and then having to have someone explain to him what they mean.

Someone like Uncle Dick, who's already wiped his @$$ on it, anyway.

Too bad Santa couldn't have done a fly by and dumped the bag on both their heads.

Death by Constitution!

Now that, I like!

The nuNazi'll try to burn them like Oil Cheney did his office a la Hitler. They're on the ropes, almost 200,00 thousand people on the impeachment signatures, no more war(s) and sooon, Billary 'drug cartel' vs....

I betcha they're all toasty and warm in the White House tonight from the roaring fire all those copies of the constitution made.

They dont care and are laughing at it.

I have to say, i do like what they did, though. Thank he got the message?

NOT.

I'm just curious. What part or parts of the Constitution has Bush been derelict in supporting, protecting and/or defending? Please be specific.

reply to post by m3rlz


37k? of them

one thing comes to mind



thats all its good for in the hands of Bush

Mod Edit: Image Hotlinking – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 22/12/2007 by Mirthful Me]

reply to post by goosdawg


What a wonderful early chrissy prezzie.. I hope Bushy boy has lots of fun playing with his new toy.


Death by constipation would be more fitting i believe.

reply to post by Tuning Spork


The First Amendment:
Free speech zones.

The Fourth Amendment:
The Patriot Act.
The Protect America Act.
Signing statement released when he signed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act.

The Fifth and Sixth Amendment:
The Military Commissions Act.

Thats just a few of them.

[edit on 12/21/2007 by Alien42]

reply to post by Alien42


I asked for specific references to actions on Bush's part that might be contrued as being un Constutional. Not links to outside sources.

Please, if you have the time or inclination, to present and define the President's unConstitutional action(s).

I await yer measured response, Alien42.

EDIT: Incidentally, "Free Speech Zones" were established to protect the speakers, not the "goverment". We shouldn't have Seattle's GTO chaos running rampant in every city now should we?

Should we?
/edit

[edit on 21-12-2007 by Tuning Spork]

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
Incidentally, "Free Speech Zones" were established to protect the speakers, not the "goverment".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that kind of like the government saying; "We're restricting your ability to freely assemble in order to protect your freedom to assemble?"

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
We shouldn't have Seattle's GTO chaos running rampant in every city now should we?

Should we?

Hell yeah!

The old school GTO's are wicked cool!

I think every city that has one should have a riot!:

Image Source | CanadianDriver | Classic Pontiac GTO has role in XXX movie starring Vin Diesel

Wait....

I'm just messing with you.

I'm sure you meant the WTO and not the GTO.

So in response to that question:

Hell yeah!

The good old boy's WTO meetings are just plain wicked!

I think every city that hosts one should should stage a riot!


[edit on 22-12-2007 by goosdawg]

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
EDIT: Incidentally, "Free Speech Zones" were established to protect the speakers, not the "goverment". We shouldn't have Seattle's GTO chaos running rampant in every city now should we?

Should we?
/edit

Originally posted by goosdawg
I'm sure you meant the WTO and not the GTO.

So in response to that question:

Hell yeah!

The good old boy's WTO meetings are just plain wicked!

I think every city that hosts one should should stage a riot!

the riots incited in Seattle because of the WTO protests were started by "left-wing anarchist groups [that] are actually controlled by the state and used to demonize peaceful protesters."

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

the same thing happened in Quebec at the SPP summit earlier this year when three plain-clothes police provocateurs try to start another riot...

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by goosdawg
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that kind of like the government saying; "We're restricting your ability to freely assemble in order to protect your freedom to assemble?"

a so-called "Free Speech Zone" is definately a violation of the 1st Amendment...

reply to post by dgtempe


I think he have them now in his own private bathroom to use it as toilet paper.

Thanks brodul for the nice littler picture.

Bush doesn't have to get rid of the constitution, because it still look great for displace as an old piece of paper, he just make more laws and rules to make harder for Americans to be free in this country.

He just call it modifications to help control the people from themselves and let no forget those pesky terrorist.

Originally posted by m3rlz
the riots incited in Seattle because of the WTO protests were started by "left-wing anarchist groups [that] are actually controlled by the state and used to demonize peaceful protesters."

the same thing happened in Quebec at the SPP summit earlier this year when three plain-clothes police provocateurs try to start another riot...

a so-called "Free Speech Zone" is definately a violation of the 1st Amendment...

Which indicates to me that these state instigated riots were simply part of a plan to bring about the Orwellian "newspeak" Free Speech Zones.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by goosdawg]

Maybe they should have also given a copy to each and every member of congress as well.

M3rls,

Let's say that you wrote: "A 'Free Speech Zone' is a violation of the 1st Amendment."

I would wholeheartedly agree with your statement, per se. However, in this (that) case, we're not merely discussing public "speech", we are discussing pubic safety.

When, M3rls, should we protect our (let's call it) "freedom of expression" over our (let's call it) "freedom of freedom from 'freedom of expression', a.k.a, what we are blessed by the blood of our forefathers to call 'common ol' everyday annoying Freedom'"?

But, then again, we allegedly came here to talk about Bush. So let's move on, m!

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
However, in this (that) case, we're not merely discussing public "speech", we are discussing pubic safety.

greetings... did you watch those videos?

public safety would not have been a concern if the state-sponsored Black Bloc group was not there to stir up trouble... it was a peaceful protest until they started in, and the police did nothing about it...

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
When, M3rls, should we protect our (let's call it) "freedom of expression" over our (let's call it) "freedom of freedom from 'freedom of expression', a.k.a, what we are blessed by the blood of our forefathers to call 'common ol' everyday annoying Freedom'"?

i can't comprehend that question at the moment as i am a bit drunk, lol... i will read it again tomorrow...

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
But, then again, we allegedly came here to talk about Bush. So let's move on, m!

that is correct, and the examples posted above by Alien42 are a good start... Bush had to sign those bills into law, which in turn helps to further nullify what the Constitution represents...

here is another small, yet rather insignificant, example of Bush himself violating the Constitution:

on 20 Jan 2005, when Bush was sworn in for his second term, he was sworn in at 11:56 A.M. EST, which is a violation of the 20th amendment since his first term was technically not over at that time... Cheney also violated it because he was sworn in before Bush... they were using Skull and Bones standard time, which is supposedly five minutes ahead of the time of the rest of the world...

Amendment 20 - Presidential, Congressional Terms. Ratified 01/23/1933.

1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

they cannot be sworn in before noon until the previous term has ended...

g'nite for now...

[edit] p.s. -- it is "m3rlz" [/edit]

[edit on 22 12Dec 07 by m3rlz]

reply to post by Tuning Spork


Tuning Spork, I see by your avatar that you live in Nw England, which is a part of the USA.

If you do not know by now what Constitutionally protected liberties you have lost, and if you demand that others enumerate them for you, then you are simply being provocative, or as staggeringly uninformed as you were when they were nullified by this administration.

Anyway, you will obviously never miss them. Enjoy your bliss!

[typos]

[edit on 22-12-2007 by gottago]

Free speech was a lot easier to define when people were at least tolerant of others' opinions and allowed them to be heard. I keep seeing the term free speech used by large groups of idiots that think it protects their right to crash an assembly of those with an opposing viewpoint and yell loudly so that the opposing viewpoint is never heard. I doubt our forefathers ever thought a time would come in this country where people would have so little respect for others that they would do such a thing.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by BlueTriangle]