Need help with response to freeper.

[driver8]

On my veteran's board, I have claimed that Bush has violated the Fourth Ammendment to the Constitution and should be impeached. One of the freepers on my board says he has not, and uses Article II as his reason.

I have read Article II several times and cannot find anywhere that says the President has the power to spy on citizens whenever he feels necessary.

Before I go back and tell this guy he is full of shit, I want to be certain that I am right. Can anyone help me out here?

Also, please read the post below and comment on it regarding Feingold.

------------
Here is his post:

Russ Feingold (D-WI)brought forward a request to censure President
Bush.

You may not agree with GWB, may not think his best job is always
satisfactory, but no one has ever accused GWB of bad faith.

In the absence of any showing of bad faith, who can stand up and
censure and condemn the president?

Obviously, that pu$$y-boy Feingold could not even back up his own
words. He had already chosen to leave the Senate chamber. You see,
that is key. Feingold fled after offering his censure movement. He
fled the Senate! He fled the Senate floor. Friggin loser!!

Censure, being a much lower obstacle to hurdle, would not be
supported by the Demo leadership.

Do you really think that there are grounds for impeachment?

Mike: Have you read Article 2 of the Constitution yet? Can you
explain where you think that President Bush is shi##ing on the
document as your have claimed on at least 3 occasions?

[tavalon]

1. I hate to tell you this

but teaching a pig to fly is impossible. You probably ought not to get into the fray.

[OnionPatch]

2. How the **%$#* does he know

that the president does what he does in good faith?

Tell him our rule of law is not based on "good faith", it is based on a set of laws that no man is above.

[Cocoa]

3. Bush violated the FISA statute

which specifically outlaws what Bush did.

[dchill]

4. Article II pretty much DEMANDS Bush be censured.

"...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."

Executed,as in "carried out" - not "terminated." Your freeper friend probably only thinks in tems of the second usage, just like the pRez.

Article II, like the rest of the Constitution, does not give the president to break ANY law, which he clearly has done. That's all there is to it.

But good luck convincing a freeper of that.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

5. Specter cited Article II and used the argument...

...that "Constitution trumps statute" to suggest that it is premature to accuse Dubya of committing any crime with regard to his authorization of warrantless wiretapping. I consider this argument specious in that any US citizen, including POTUS is obliged to operate within the framework of the law (and yes, that includes statutory law). To knowingly do otherwise is, by definition, CRIMINAL. Now anyone known to have broken a law may attempt a constitutional challenge, but they have no reasonable expectation that we withhold/reserve their criminal status until any constitutional challenge raised is resolved. The President knowingly broke the law and then lied about it. He IS a criminal.

If I were to receive the dreaded NSA letter ordering that I turn over all my records and information about one of my employees or a client, and I choose not to cooperate, I am not in compliance with the Patriot Act and have committed a crime. I can assure you our government will not wait for the results of any constitutional challenge I may try to raise to brand me a criminal, maybe even a terrorist sympathizer, and cart me off to one of Halliburton's concentration camps.

Sorry this got so wordy. Hope it helps in some way.

mj24

[Applan]

6. And here's another law he just broke......

Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) has alleged in a letter to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that President Bush signed a version of the Budget Reconciliation Act that, in effect, did not pass the House of Representatives.

Further, Waxman says there is reason to believe that the Speaker of the House called President Bush before he signed the law, and alerted him that the version he was about to sign differed from the one that actually passed the House. If true, this would put the President in willful violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The full text of the letter follows:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Congressman_writes_White_House_Did_President_0315.html

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

7. Let's hope this story gains traction. nt.