How exactly has George W. bush violated the U.S. Constitution?  

Yeah, I've seen plenty of sites like that. I wasn't really looking for a copy and paste job though. There are a lot of accusations against Bush, some valid and some not so valid. I was looking for people to honestly articulate what they personally felt were constitutional violations and why since many people who attack him and his violations are either incapable of naming them, or openly support the exact same violations of the constitution when the person committing them has a letter "D" next to his name.

Bush put us all in trillion dollar debt.now we people have to pay it out of the wazoo taxes or what ever but its coming out of our hydes.

enough to know he skunked us in debt as his father did.

good riddence to them and hope they all fall flat on there arses and lose every dime they have!!

My opinions isnt liked oh well dont know what to tell yas. dont ask if the reply back isnt what you wanted to here.

I appreciate your response Reneemm, but you're wrong. Bush did not put us in trillion dollar debt. We were already in debt by $5.7 trillion when he took office. When he left office we were in debt by about $10.3 trillion. His father didn't leave us in debt that much. We were $4.2 trillion in debt at the end of Bush Senior's term and he entered office with about $2.5 trillion in debt. Your opinions aren't really important to me since your facts are just plain wrong.

Aside from all your mistakes, you failed to mention any constitutional violations. This country has been in debt since long before you or I were born and I don't know of any part of the constitution that would make it a violation to have us in debt or increase that debt.

Fisa - 4th amendment
T,A,R.P. - article one section 8
Patriot act - 4th and 5th ammendments and havius Corpus
the minimum drinking age act - 10th amenment
Campaign finance reform - 1st amenment
federal drug laws- 10th amendment

Thanks X, I knew you'd be quick to post here. FISA and the Patriot act are certainly no-brainers with regards to the constitution. I'm disgusted by how often congress votes crap like that through without even bothering to read the bills. I feel as though we should be requiring our congress to take a course in the constitution before their term begins.

I'm sure nobody ever thinks about the drinking age, but it's certainly an example of the federal government overstepping its bounds with powers that are supposed to be left to the states. I personally despise illegal drugs, but I can't really argue that constitutionally, laws regarding them should be left to the states. I'll have to look into that more.

Nice job with article 1 section 8 regarding TARP

"To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; "

I would have had to do a lot of digging to find that.

I was very disappointed with how Bush handled the campaign finance reform. It seemed quite clear that he felt it was unconstitutional and yet he signed it anyway, passing the buck to the Supreme Court who really seems as though they gave up on the constitution a long time ago.

"I personally despise illegal drugs, but I can't really argue that constitutionally, laws regarding them should be left to the states. I'll have to look into that more"
no need, the 10th amendment covers it perfectly. Basicly it not only gived specific powers to the federal government, it essesntialy says "if we didn't think of adding it in here, you can't do it"

I think my words were a bit poorly written on that. I meant that based on the constitution, I can't find anything that would allow the federal government to create federal drug laws. It should be left to the states even though I personally would like the most dangerous drugs to be illegal throughout the country. I'm going to research it more, but as you said, if the constitution doesn't name it, it's the state's decision.

Does the 10th amendment really mean that if it isn't in the Constitution then the federal government can't do it? If that was so, why would we need a legislature at all, because ALL federal laws would be unconstitutional? The 10th amendment says that the POWERS not delegated by the constitution are reserved to the States and the people. The ability to make laws IS a power that is given to the federal government, so if the federal government wants to pass a law on illegal drugs, that is not at all unconstitutional. One could argue that lots of things that the federal government has done - the Federal Reserve is the first one that comes to mind - are unconstitutional because they added powers they were not given by the Constitution, but passing laws is not one of them. (Just had to play Devil's Advocate for a second.)

Does the 10th amendment really mean that if it isn't in the Constitution then the federal government can't do it? If that was so, why would we need a legislature at all, because ALL federal laws would be unconstitutional? The 10th amendment says that the POWERS not delegated by the constitution are reserved to the States and the people. The ability to make laws IS a power that is given to the federal government, so if the federal government wants to pass a law on illegal drugs, that is not at all unconstitutional. One could argue that lots of things that the federal government has done - the Federal Reserve is the first one that comes to mind - are unconstitutional because they added powers they were not given by the Constitution, but passing laws is not one of them. (Just had to play Devil's Advocate for a second.)"
Yes, that is EXACTLY what the 10th amendment means. Yes, the legislature and the federal government CAN make laws, but only with in the confines of the 18 specific powers enurated to them. And your right about the federal reserve, it IS unconstitutional, not only is it unconstitutional, it isn't even federal, it's a private entity.

Where in the constitution does it mention a type of ban on taxing wages?

Your american, read the constitution for yourself. If it wasn't there then how would hundreds be able to go to court and win for it??

Who went to court and won over it? In what city and or state did this happen in? I can read the constitution but you're giving me nothing to go on here. If I had a bit of information on the cases you claim happened I could easily research the issue. In such cases it's possible that the judge was setting precedent, i.e. judge made law, to give them the win. It would say so in the actual case law if that's what happened, or if a specific line in the constitution was used.

Tell you what buddy. Since you're in Australia, I'm having a hard time understanding why you are acting like you know the U.S. constitution better than me. Read the 16th ammendment. It gives congress the right, in no uncertain terms to tax income. If there are cases where people have challenged their income tax and won, I want to know what those cases are and how they were won.

Task, he isn't totaly wrong. The 16th amendment technicly was never propperly ratified.

The majority of them don't read it I'm sure. I know full well that every time he violated the constitution he had both democrats and republicans backing him up. For all the attacks on him by the left, I'm really surprised I didn't get more responses to this question. This was a golden opportunity for anyone with a legitimate constitutional beef over his policies.

You gave them too much of a warning that they would have to prove their point and you would be responding. Liberal's hate to discuss the constitution... they only like it when someone is not at all knowledgeble so they can twist it into meaning what ever is to their advantage. Especially the 14th in my opinion.

I wanted to make that point because even know I knew you knew it I also thought a bunch of people from the left didn't jump at this and wanted to put that out there.

Well I've been accused of censoring and intimidating people by challenging them to back up their statements and calling them out when they are lying or misleading people. I guess I'm just so scary and intimidating as words on a computer screen that even the "Bush is a war criminal" crowd runs and hides when I give them an open opportunity to legitimately explain their issues.

I knew Xfahctor would give me some solid examples. I'd just hoped to get the more rabid liberals on the board to give serious consideration to the accusations against Bush and determine which are valid and why. No such luck.

Laugh Out Loud. I know better than to cross you!

But seriously have you noticed the activity of the Liberal / more left wing side have greatly thinned out here on Mylot? I mean unless Obama actually does something right were even people on the right say so (most recently thank god he didn't release those photos), it doesn't seem like they want to come out and play as often.

Only for the Palin bashing threads. That's when they show up in force. I guess by specifying the constitution I limited their ability to mindlessly bash Bush and subsequently limited my own thread.

LOL... Oh there they are. Yeah I guess a Powerful Pro-life Conservative Feminist who knows how to shot a gun is a touchy thing for the left.