Brendan+B.

‍‍‍‍‍ ** Period 4 ** ‍ include component="pageList" hideInternal="true" tag="B. Bishop" homeAtTop="on" limit="10" media type="youtube" key="Imu3f-mW8No" width="425" height="350"

media type="youtube" key="4Qgj3IA7mtw" width="425" height="350" align="center"

media type="youtube" key="nLMbru3XjIk" width="425" height="350" align="center"

media type="youtube" key="st3fJKe_6HM" width="425" height="350" align="center"

media type="youtube" key="mrVtM_eakZU" width="425" height="350" align="center"

How Bush’s Actions Challenged the Constitution When George Bush and Dick Cheney were elected President and Vice President respectively nobody foresaw all of the events that would occur over his term. Ever since the end of the two terms there has been ongoing controversy about their actions. The video //Cheney’s Law// documents the journey that the Bush administration took in the wild eight years it was in charge. The guest speakers provided their opinions and presented some controversy on the actions of the President and his administration. First, the debate on whether or not the administration’s actions were constitutional was a major question. On September 11, 2001 there was a monumental terrorist attack on the United States. The group high jacked four airplanes and three hit their intended targets: the two world trade center buildings and the pentagon. The other one was supposed to hit the white House but went down before it could get there. The administration had to make some drastic decisions. The debate on whether or not the administration’s actions were constitutional was a major question. I do not think that the actions taken by President Bush and Vice President Cheney were strictly constitutional. The fourth amendment states that search and seizures without a warrant are not legal. This was put into place to prevent the equivalent of the British writs of assistance, blanket search warrants. But, some of the acts put into place by the administration were leaning in the direction of the writs of assistance. For example, there was a document drafted that allowed the government, mostly the NSA, to wiretap Americans in search for terrorist threats. This was a critical decision to protect the country. The problem is, as American citizens living under the constitution, the wiretapping is one hundred percent illegal. However, I could see the government arguing that if they did find citizens connected to terrorism they could say that the citizens in question are no longer seen as citizens and therefore the actions of the government were not illegal. So, this poses the question of whether the act of treason can be the standing of the government to perform these illegal acts after the suspicion is found. The answer is no, without a reasonable suspicion before the search, the person being accused is considered a citizen and protected by the constitution, so the process that obtained any such information was and still is illegal. Then there is the follow up after the information is found. Even after all of this there was more controversy on the treatment of these people after they were apprehended. Many felt that the eighth amendment was broken with these actions. The eighth amendment is summarized as to the effect that the government cannot set excessive bail and or cruel and unusual punishment. The people, who were arrested or were found to be involved in some sort of suspicious activity, were sent far away from civilization to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. They were not allowed to be tried in civilian courts. But, most importantly, there were some actions taken to allow the CIA to practice illegal interrogation techniques such as torture and water-boarding. These government actions were seen by many as breaking the eighth amendment. I believe that they do because they are causing harm to the people in custody. The Geneva Convention was another accord that was thought to be broken by the administration. The Geneva Convention was made up of four treaties pertaining to the rules of war. The third treaty was the one in question. This section has to do with the protection and treatment of prisoners of war. The question was brought up when prisoners were taken from Iraq and treated and interrogated the same way as the others. Also, even the decision to even go into Iraq was under great scrutiny. Bush felt that the attack was so great that to protect the country he had to launch a great offensive against the terrorist group and other unstable countries that could potentially harm the U.S. The only problem is that to officially go to war the action must be approved by the legislature. Second, there has been another chief debate surrounding the fact that Cheney fully believed in Executive power. He brought in a lawyer that felt the same way, David Addington. The pair completely controlled behind the scenes to maximize what the President could do. Addington was known for his knowledge of signing agreements. They had many pawns in place, one being John Yoo of the OLC, who wrote many documents In this case, the agreements that he drafted countermanded the decisions made by legislature. These two made many decisions, against the other groups in the government, specifically targeted to give the President more power to make decisions affecting the people of the United States. The system that our constitution was founded on was to prevent too much power going to any one group. So the ideology that Cheney held about the Executive Branch and the President does go against the principles on which the country was founded. Finally, the thinking that the President should have more power than any other part of government is not strictly written except for the fact that the other branches can rule against the President’s actions, in a system of checks and balances. So the question is can the President do things that are not constitutional and can he overrule Congress. Many of the people in the administration, especially in the justice department, did not feel that the president is the main power house of the government. I think that there are certain situations that the country can be in that the President feels that they have to take away the rights and freedoms of the constitution to protect the country and its citizens, like after 9/11. I would much rather have the right, freedoms, and privacy than have the government use the power that the people gave to it to take the rights of the people away. So in that respect I believe that the President should definitely have to adhere to the rulings by the Supreme Court on the issues of being constitutional. Now should the President be able to overrule congress, like he did to go to war and other measures that he took. No, congress can exercise authority over some of the President’s decisions. But if Congress is stonewalling him should he be able to do at least some things that he wants, unfortunately, no. Strictly factual and how it is written the president is not allowed to make decisions by himself and go against Congress. In this view, I think the President should have at least some more power, because he is the president and he was the one person elected by the people to run the entire country. In summary, most of the measures taken by President Bush and his administration, after the terrorist attacks, have always been in question. The President made many tough decisions leaving many to wonder whether all of them could have been constitutional or if the President was operating on executive privilege and making his own decisions without the consent of others within the government. I think that there tends to be some problems where the President has to take complete responsibility for the country without the restraints of others, even if it may not be seen as completely legal or constitutional. President Bush did what he thought would be the best things for the country and the citizens.



‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍

include component="comments" page="Brendan B." limit="10"

media type="custom" key="11179572"