COL Gene COL Gene

OUR Constitution is Under Attack!

OUR Constitution is Under Attack!




The U.S. Constitution is the foundation for our rights and essential for the success of our nation. The federal government was brought into existence by the people through our Constitution. Second, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land that controls the actions of our public officials in all three branches of the federal government. Every elected official swears to UPHOLD the U.S. Constitution. The very foundations of Our Constitution are being violated by the highest elected officials in America and we are allowing this travesty to take place.

The most basic principal upon which the rights of our system are based is the Separation of Powers. This was intended to split and therefore limit the power of each of the three branches of our government. That principal, which was set out by our founding fathers, can not be violated if our government is to protect the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Two powers granted to Congress and ONLY to Congress by our Constitution are the power to Declare War and the Power of the Budget. Both of these Congressional responsibilities have been usurped by President Bush. In the case of the budget, Bush has been allowed to establish his spending priorities and the Congress has in effect abdicated their responsibility to set the spending. The most recent example is the S-CHIP funding which Congress passed in a bipartisan vote. Bush has vetoed that decision by Congress which is an abuse of his veto power. If Congress does not override this veto Bush and NOT Congress, as the Constitution Requires, will set the spending policy of our country. Once the majority of Congress chooses a spending level, they have a responsibility to insure that it is established and must override any Presidential veto to insure their constitutional responsibility is met.

What does our Constitution say about war? Our Founders divided war into two separate powers: Congress was given the power to declare war and the president was given the power to wage war. What that means is that under our system of government, the president cannot legally wage war against another nation in the absence of a declaration of war against that nation from Congress. When Congress passed the Iraq War Resolution they delegated that Constitutional power to declare war to the President. There is NO provision in our Constitution to delegate that power to the President. When Congress passed this clearly unconstitutional law, a case should have been initiated to challenge that Iraq War Resolution. No such action was undertaken and the third branch of our government, our courts, was unable to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to insure Congress and the President do not act outside the Constitution.

In both these examples George W. Bush violated his oath of office. Every time Congress does not insure their decision on the budget is enacted they fail their responsibility. The Iraq war resolution is a failure of first Congress then Bush and finally by the fact that a case was not brought to the Federal Courts to challenge the Iraq war Resolution. Technically the Courts did not violate their constitutional responsibility because they can only exercise that power WHEN a case has been initiated. Thus the fact that no case was brought to challenge the action of Congress to delegate a power only Congress can exercise was because no American choose to challenge the resolution in court. I for one believe that such a suit should be brought today to make it clear for the future that ONLY Congress has the power to declare war. Congress DID NOT declare war against Iraq. On December 8, 1941 Congress did not say to President Roosevelt he had the power to declare war against Japan, Germany or Italy. Congress DECLARED WAR and that enabled President Roosevelt to act under his power as Commander-in-Chief. That is NOT what took place in Iraq. Bush acted as both the Congress and as Commander-in-Chief.

We need to STOP the destruction of our Constitution by the President or Congress. The first step in that quest is to tell Congress they and not Bush need to set the spending of the United States. The second action is to bring a case that challenges the Iraq War Resolution which continues today to be the authority by which Bush continues the Iraq War. There is no greater danger then to allow the President or Congress to violate our Constitution!
30,920 views 121 replies
Reply #76 Top
What nobody has mentioned is that it was a bunch of idiots who couldn't even figure out how to vote that were 'voting' for Gore.
Reply #77 Top
The 3,500 people who completed ballots that were voided in Palm Beach County.




what i want to know is the names of the 3500 people. i am not agrueing against the number i want the names.
Reply #78 Top

Reply By: Daiwa Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2007
“That was their choice. The 3,500 that DID vote

...chose to be stupid, that's what.

Bungling your vote is the same as not voting. Get over it. Come on, Gene - where's your devotion to the Constitution here?”

That is NOT true. The voters were confused by a unique ballot design that officials admitted after the election was confusing and that caused their votes not to be counted. They should have been able to hold a special election in that one County in FL for ONLY those that choose to vote and make sure their vote was counted. NOTHING you or anyone has said changes the fact the Bush is president because of this error not because the majority of voters voted for him in Florida or in total.
Reply #79 Top




Reply By: danielost Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2007
The 3,500 people who completed ballots that were voided in Palm Beach County.




What I want to know is the names of the 3500 people. I am not agrueing against the number i want the names.

Their names make NO DIFFERENCE. The fact is that 3,500 people who voted in Palm beach County did not have their votes counted because of a confusing ballot design! Because the confusion was between the top two positions which did not include Bush there is no possibility that any of those 3,500 votes were cast for Bush. Bush won Fl by about 500 votes and would not have won Fl had those 3,500 votes been counted as the voters intended.
Reply #80 Top
Bush won Fl by about 500 votes and would not have won Fl had those 3,500 votes been counted as the voters intended.


HOW DO YOU KNOW DID YOU TALK TO THOSE 3500. if not stop saying gore would have won and say gore may have won. maybe those 3500 wanted to vote for nader.
Reply #81 Top
Why does nobody seem to remember that if Gore had simply won his home state of TN, Florida would not have been an issue?

He couldn't even win his home state!
Reply #82 Top
"Vote for Gore, in TN!"

"We know all about him. No thanks."
Reply #83 Top

“HOW DO YOU KNOW DID YOU TALK TO THOSE 3500? if not stop saying gore would have won and say gore may have won. Maybe those 3500 wanted to vote for Nader.”

People were interviewed and said they voted for Gore and admitted they double punched the ballot. The double punch was at Buchanan and Gore not Bush or Nader.


First, voters were interviewed and they admitted they were confused and double punched the ballot.

In all cases the ballots that were double punched and voided had the punch for Buchanan and Gore NOT Bush or Nader.

The vast majority were registered Democrats.

Bottom line-- 3,500 votes were NOT counted because of a confusing design in the ballot. The % of voided ballots in that one County was off the scale compare with the other 66 counties in Florida all of which used a different ballot (all 66 used the same design). Bush won the total vote in Florida because these 3,500 votes were voided. If everyone in Florida had their vote counted as intended, Bush would have lost the popular vote in Florida and Gore would have been awarded the FL electoral College vote and been elected President!
Reply #84 Top
"I was confused, so I voted for two people instead of one."

"You know you only get one vote, right?"

"Yeah, but I was confused."

"There are people that are here to help you if you're confused. They would've told you what to do."

You know, I think it's unfair to Buchanan. He deserved those votes as much as Gore did.
Reply #85 Top
Why does nobody seem to remember that if Gore had simply won his home state of TN, Florida would not have been an issue?

He couldn't even win his home state!


has anyone won the presidency without their home state
Reply #86 Top
“HOW DO YOU KNOW DID YOU TALK TO THOSE 3500? if not stop saying gore would have won and say gore may have won. Maybe those 3500 wanted to vote for Nader.”


Reply #87 Top
Reply By: danielost Posted: Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Bush won Fl by about 500 votes and would not have won Fl had those 3,500 votes been
Reply By: danielost Posted: Wednesday, October 10, 2007
“HOW DO YOU KNOW DID YOU TALK TO THOSE 3500? if not stop saying gore would have won and say gore may have won. Maybe those 3500 wanted to vote for Nader.”


Look Stupid-- the Voided Ballots had two punches one at Buchanan and the other at Gore. There was NO attempt to cast a vote for either Bush or Nader. That area is mostly democratic and after the election surveys with people in that area make it clear many of the older voters admitted they double punched their ballots and said they intent to vote for Gore. Given the way the Ballots were punched NONE of the 3,500 voters intended to vote for either Bush or Nader. To believe the majority of those 3,500 votes, if not all of them, were for anyone other then Gore simply ignores reality. Even if a handful of those 3,500 intended to vote for Buchanan that leaves the VAST MAJORITY for Gore which were NOT counted. It would only take 600 of the 3,500 uncounted votes for Gore to have given the total Florida Vote to Gore! Face it—Bush is President because 3,500 voters were confused by the ballot design in Palm Beach County, FL and their votes for Gore were not counted! You can BS for a 1,000 years and it will not alter this fact!
Reply #88 Top
Bush is President because 3,500 voters were confused by the ballot design in Palm Beach County, FL and their votes for Gore were not counted! You can BS for a 1,000 years and it will not alter this fact!


No, actually, COL, Bush is president because he defeated John Kerry in 2004. The term under which he was initially elected expired in January 2005.

Why have the rest of the Democrats moved on? Because they realize pissing and moaning about an election thaat took place 7 years ago does not in any way assist them in the present.

Good grief!
Reply #89 Top
The fact is, they voted twice. They thought their vote was worth twice what the rest of our votes are worth. In my opinion, that shows a level of unAmerican behaviour so great that their double-votes should not count. Or else, how do you tell whether it's for Gore or Buchanan?

See, even if we did vote for a third party, they'd just say, "Must've been a confusing ballot!"
Reply #90 Top

Reply By: Gideon MacLeish Posted: Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Bush is President because 3,500 voters were confused by the ballot design in Palm Beach County, FL and their votes for Gore were not counted! You can BS for a 1,000 years and it will not alter this fact!


No, actually, COL, Bush is president because he defeated John Kerry in 2004. The term under which he was initially elected expired in January 2005.


If Gore had been successful in 2000 as he should have been, I doubt Bush would have been elected in 2004.
Reply #91 Top
If Gore had been successful in 2000 as he should have been, I doubt Bush would have been elected in 2004.


me too because i doubt that there would have been a country after 9-11
Reply #92 Top
The 3,500 people who completed ballots that were voided in Palm Beach County. They all voted and their votes for Gore were not counted.


You do understand that a secret ballot makes it impossible to say who had their ballot kicked out because of stupidity? Any 3500 people can make that claim. For all we know it was republican votes that were kicked out allowing the democrats to get double the votes.
Reply #93 Top
which is why i keep saying that unless you know for a fact that you have talked to those 3500(and there is no way you would ever know) then there is no way you can say that al gore would have won...
Reply #94 Top
Reply By: danielost Posted: Wednesday, October 10, 2007
“If Gore had been successful in 2000 as he should have been, I doubt Bush would have been elected in 2004.


Me too because I doubt that there would have been a country after 9-11.”

You are full of BS. Bush IGNORED six months of warnings from the CIA that we were about to be attacked by al-Qaeda. Gore may have treated those warnings with more relevance. We will never know but what we do know is that Bush ignored those warnings; we were attacked just as the warnings said and Bush then attacked a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11. I do not know how Gore would have done after 9/11 but he could not have done any worse then Bush!!!!!
Reply #95 Top
Bush IGNORED six months of warnings from the CIA that we were about to be attacked by al-Qaeda.


You are a political hack! If the problem was so obvious that Mr. Bush ignored all the information for the eight months he was president what does that say about Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore who were in charge for the eight years prior to the attack? Five of those years they were in charge was the planning stage of the attack. The last two years of their administration was when the terrorist had gotten into the country to put the plan into action. The PDB with the title of “bin Laden determined to attack the United States” was a historical document based on the last six years prior to their attack so none of this was new information. If Mr. Gore ignored these warnings for years what makes you think that he would suddenly do something about it once he was president?

The fact is that Mr. Bush did not ignore the warnings at all. Plans were put into effect to destroy AQ, but there was not enough time to do anything because all the time wasted by the previous administration.
Reply #96 Top
Reply By: Paladin77 Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2007
“Bush IGNORED six months of warnings from the CIA that we were about to be attacked by al-Qaeda.


You are a political hack! If the problem was so obvious that Mr. Bush ignored all the information for the eight months he was president what does that say about Mr. Clinton”


The CIA Warnings about al-Qaeda planning to attack the U.S. started in March 2001 AFTER Clinton was no longer President. In addition, Clinton met was President Elect Bush in December 2000 and told him face to face that he ( Clinton) considered one of the greatest threats to the U.S. to be al-Qaeda and Bin Laden. It was Bush that ignored both Clinton and the CIA warnings as to the danger from al-Qaeda and Bin Laden!
Reply #97 Top
It was Bush that ignored both Clinton and the CIA warnings as to the danger from al-Qaeda and Bin Laden!


How did he ignore the warnings? He asked for an increase in troops, he ordered the CIA to kill bin Laden. DIA was sent out to do what they could but before any of that could be implemented we were attacked. Why did not Mr. Clinton do something he had 4 years to do something? You say the warnings came in March of 2001 giving Mr. Bush only six months to stop AQ but Mr. Clinton knew about it and did nothing other than tell the new president to look out for AQ. Either Mr. Clinton lied about the warning in January of 2001 or did the first real warnings come in March of 2001. If Mr. Clinton warned Mr. Bush before he took office why did not Mr. Clinton do something about it? Which lie do you want me to believe this time?
Reply #98 Top
Bush IGNORED six months of warnings from the CIA t


and clinton ignored 2 years of warnings. and then did his best to make sure bush didn't know about them .
Reply #99 Top


Reply By: Paladin77 Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2007
“It was Bush that ignored both Clinton and the CIA warnings as to the danger from al-Qaeda and Bin Laden!


How did he ignore the warnings? He asked for an increase in troops, he ordered the CIA to kill bin Laden.



Reply By: danielost Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2007
Bush IGNORED six months of warnings from the CIA t


and clinton ignored 2 years of warnings. and then did his best to make sure bush didn't know about them .”


The CIA Warnings that we were to be attacked by Bin Laden started in MARCH 2002 and lasted up to Sept 6, 2002. That was AFTER CLINTON left office. Clinton knew there was a danger from bin Laden and that is why he told that to Bush in December JUST before Bush took office. Bush did NOTHING in response to direct and repeated warnings that we were about to be attacked for 6 months before 9/11. Bush DID not ask Congress to increase the Army or Marines after 9/11. If Bush had said we need more troops after 9/11 and told Congress we did not have the troop levels NEEDED to invade Iraq as the Military Planners and generals said, Bush would have got the increase in the troops. What he did is NOTHING and went to way with less then 1/3 the troop levels that were REQUIRED. Bush allowed the violence to develop in Iraq and Bush allowed the Foreign terrorists to begin operating in Iraq because we did not have enough troops to prevent that from taking place!
Reply #100 Top
CIA Warnings happened after 9/11?