Straight up, this is precisely the problem. It has been since Richard Nixon. Gerald Ford was the only Republican US president since then who has not attempted to subvert it, violated it, or attempted to ignore it. Watergate; Iran-Contra; the October Surprise; Florida 2000; PATRIOT; Ohio 2004. The list goes on, and on, and on. By far not the least item on that list: the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

Flawed as it may be, the US Constitution protects our rights; it is a document far more about what the government MAY NOT do than about anything else. The removal of even one of those “may not“s is cause for the most serious concern. The misuse or deliberate misinterpretation of the document’s provisions should be as well.

I am not surprised Bush said that. I am suprised anyone posted an article. I was watching rerun of “The Elf” recently. And looks like Constitution became similar to a Santa. In the movie, people regained crystmas spirit by singing a song, some how I don’t think it will happen in reality. Now, let me dream a liitle, let me think that this reporter is correct, but the sources he quoted desided not to stay anonymous. Let me for a moment imagine a frontpage headline in each major newspaper: Bush on the Constitution: ‘It’s just a goddamned piece of paper’

Merry Christmas everyone…

the Presidental oath of office

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. “

I have posted articles from Capital Hill Blue in the past and have had people question the veracity of CHB as a source, although I have never had anyone show me an example of publishing a lie. “i’ve republished a few from CHB” ShiftShapers.
So the question is, is anyone aware of any problem with the reliability of CHB posts?

From the same website…....

Every time we publish a major story that puts some elected official in a bad light we get a chorus of boos from detractors who claim everything we publish is garbage and/or just a figment of an overactive imagination.

Oh, we still get raspberries from the lefties. They remember what we wrote about Clinton and we still go after Democrats who screw up. To partisans, anyone who doesn’t write from a politically-biased point of view is automatically suspect.

Often, when we check into who’s calling us what we find the questions come from an anonymous poster on a bulletin board or a partisan blogger who publishes under a nom de plume. They question both our use of anonymous sources and the credibility of those sources.

There is a laughable irony that comes from some keyboard commando who hides behind an anonymous “handle” criticizing us for publishing a story that uses anonymous sources.

Consider the source

Thank-you DeLozier for Capitol Hill Blue’s explaination.

The measure of credibility is not whether the sources are anonymous- the measure of credibility is, has what they published in the past turned out to be correct, and do they strictly follow the rule that an anonymous source requires a confirming source, which IIRC is the general rule for publishing stories based on information provided by a confidential source who refuses to be identified.

On edit: silver or anthony could confirm if my recollection of the details of that rule is correct, and I’d actually like to know that. It’s important in my own evaluation of sources, and it should be in all of yours, too.

For what it’s worth, Capitol Hill Blue, not Drudge, was the 1st to break the Clinton/Lewinsky/impeachment story.

Here is a piece from Progressive Review, Who is Doug Thompson? on Doug Thompson, editor of Capital Hill Blue. This may help settle the question of his credibility. There has yet to be anything posted that gives any reason to question Thompson’s credibility. http://prorev.com/2005/12/who-is-doug-thompson.htm#links

Thanks, mwm. It’s a help.

Interesting, I saw this story, then heard that President Ford had been hospitalized, and I remembered Ford’s famous speech, upon taking over as president, after Nixon resigned in disgrace, rather than face removal. What a difference in time. And what a difference in presidents.

Remarks By President Gerald Ford On Taking the Oath Of Office As President
August 9, 1974

My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.

Our Constitution works; our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men. Here the people rule. But there is a higher Power, by whatever name we honor Him, who ordains not only righteousness but love, not only justice but mercy.

As we bind up the internal wounds of Watergate, more painful and more poisonous than those of foreign wars, let us restore the golden rule to our political process, and let brotherly love purge our hearts of suspicion and of hate.

Then I looked up this next speech, again what a difference in time. The U.S. more humbled.

President Ford’s Speech on the Fall of Vietnam, 24 April 1975

I ask tonight that we stop refighting the battles and recriminations of the past. I ask that we look now at what is right with America, at our possibilities and our potentialities for change, and growth, and achievement, and sharing. I ask that we accept the responsibilities of leadership as a good neighbor to all people and the enemy of none. I ask that we strive to become, in the finest American tradition, something more tomorrow than we are today.

We are saddened, indeed, by events in Indochina. But these events, tragic as they are, portend neither the end of the world nor of America’s leadership in the world. Some seem to feel that if we do not succeed in everything everywhere, then we have succeeded, in nothing anywhere. I reject such polarized thinking. We can and should help others to help themselves. But the fate of responsible men and women everywhere, in the final decision, rests in their own hands.

I’ve been looking at CHB more and more lately, and so far as I can tell they are no more or less credible a source than any other. As a continuation of this topic I thought I’d drop off a link to a “rant” from the sites author, Doug Thompson…...

_Some 10 days ago, we reported that Bush, angry in a meeting where reauthorization of the Patriot Act was questioned, called the Constitution “just a goddamned piece of paper.”

I agonized for some time over whether or not to go with that story. I had it from two sources but went to a third one for additional confirmation before running it. As usual, we have been castigated far and wide for printing the story based on three unnamed sources and for refusing to release the names of those who gave us the information.

But I don’t give a damn what these naysayers claim. I believe the story is true because I trust the people who gave me the information. I also believe the actions of the President this past weekend confirm the absolute contempt he holds for the Constitution. His arrogance in a televised interview with Jim Lehrer on Public TV and his speech Saturday declaring his intention to continue using the National Security Agency to spy on Americans clearly shows that he believes that he, as President, is above the Constitution, the laws of the land, or the people he was elected to serve.

I am truly ashamed that, as a one-time political operative, ever had anything to do with putting people like George W. Bush or his cronies in Congress into office._

Politics, shame & the truth

Here is another article on CHB and the ‘goddamnned’ statement.
Counterpunch. 12/14/05. “Bush and the Constitution, “Just a Goddamned Piece of Paper.” By Gary Leupp.
There are two parrellel discussions going on about this.
http://www.gnn.tv/threads/10800/BUSH_says_CONSTITUTION_is_just_a_goddamned_piece_of_paper
Pne started by mkane and one by hungeski

Neverknwo

MERRY CHRISTMAS

The BBS thread version of this headline has got nearly 1400 Diggs now. I saw it on my ‘newly popular’ list.

Digg it here