Do you support the Constitution?

[QUENTIN]

Not do you think it is followed, or will it ever be followed, or anything like that.

But as an ideological position, do you believe the laws outlined in the Constitution should constrain the government and politicians in what they're able to do?

Do you think if something is explicitly unconstitutional, the government shouldn't be able to do it?

Yes or no?

 

[tigerbob]

Not do you think it is followed, or will it ever be followed, or anything like that.

But as an ideological position, do you believe the laws outlined in the Constitution should constrain the government and politicians in what they're able to do?

Do you think if something is explicitly unconstitutional, the government shouldn't be able to do it?

Yes or no?

Yes. The constitution is a sound basis for government, and the ability to enact amendments keeps it that way.

Not saying it's perfect, but sound.

 

[Seawytch]

Support it? I've sworn more than one oath to defend it.

 

[peach174]

Yes , I support it.
We would not be in this mess if had been followed.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There are those who remind us that our constitution was written over two hundred years ago. They remind us to say that our constitution was written for different times. They say that the circumstances we have in our country today could not have been considered when our constitution was written. They say that we have to bend our constitution to fit the times. They want to be able to mold our constitution to fit whatever they believe our current level of rights should be. Our founders wrote the Bill of Rights to nail down the rights of the people. They knew that without the Bill of Rights, our rights would float on the political whims of the times.

Many believe that our constitution is a government document that grants rights to the people. It is not. It is the peoples document that grants power to the government. It is, in fact, the document that created the government. The first three words of our constitution are “We the people” are they not?

Our constitution tells the government what its structure will be. It tells the government what powers it will have and which branch will have each power. It allows (but does not require) each branch to oversee the others.

The Bill of Rights is not there to create rights for the people. These rights were possessed by the people before the government existed. It is there to tell the government that it has not been given the authority, and in fact, has been specifically denied the authority to abridge these rights. The government simply does not have the authority to abridge constitutional rights. A simple law cannot take away rights. Our constitution forbids it.

Can the government pass unconstitutional law? Yes it can. Do they pass unconstitutional law? Absolutely. Many unconstitutional laws have been passed. Some have fallen to the courts. Many are still on the books. The most glaring example was back in the 80‘s when there was an astronomical number of flag burning incidents. There were three or four if I remember correctly. Anyway, as the story goes, one of the people who was arrested for burning the flag pushed his case all the way to the supreme court. The court ruled the law (a state law) unconstitutional because burning the flag was a constitutionally protected form of symbolic speech.

This ruling got both the right and left wings flapping and this bird took off. With full knowledge that a law against flag burning was unconstitutional, the government passed another law (federal law) against burning the flag. The vote in congress was virtually unanimous in favor of unconstitutional law. I think that only one senator opposed the proposed law and there was a similar response in the house. The president was waiting with pen in hand for the bill to be brought to him so that he could sign it into law. Within days the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional.

Are these the people you trust with your rights? Do you trust the people who stand up in front of the world and swear an oath to uphold our constitution when they have no intention of doing so? The vast majority of politicians would sell our constitution down the river for a few votes. It is not theirs to sell.

 

[washamericom]

should be, "does obama support the constitution ??"

we'll just see.

 

[QUENTIN]

should be, "does obama support the constitution ??"

we'll just see.

No, that's explicitly not what I'm asking.

Not do you think it is followed, or will it ever be followed, or anything like that.

But as an ideological position, do you believe the laws outlined in the Constitution should constrain the government and politicians in what they're able to do?

So. Do YOU support the Constitution and believe it SHOULD be adhered to by politicians and the government?

 

[dvinman]

To bad the corrupt politicians interpret the Constitution the same way as all the religious nuts interpret their bible which is to their satisfaction only!

 

[Oddball]

Not do you think it is followed, or will it ever be followed, or anything like that.

But as an ideological position, do you believe the laws outlined in the Constitution should constrain the government and politicians in what they're able to do?

Do you think if something is explicitly unconstitutional, the government shouldn't be able to do it?

Yes or no?

If the answer is "no", what's the point of even having a constitution?

 

[editec]

I definitely support MY interpretation of it.

Sadly my interpretation isn't the general consensus of thinking about what it means.

 

[MarcATL]

Yet another "I'm ferr FREEDUMB" thread by a radical RW poster?

I'm shocked, I say....SHOCKED!!!

 

[Two Thumbs]

When I saw this I thought; "Who the fuck wouldn't? You'd have to be a total moron not to."

No
MarcATL

Thanks for proving you're a freedom hating moron marc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~```

Yes I support and swore to defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic.

 

[tigerbob]

should be, "does obama support the constitution ??"

we'll just see.

It was a perfectly straightforward question. Stop fucking trolling!

 

[tigerbob]

I definitely support MY interpretation of it.

Sadly my interpretation isn't the general consensus of thinking about what it means.

Ah. Now that's a worthwhile point.

 

[tigerbob]

Yet another "I'm ferr FREEDUMB" thread by a radical RW poster?

I'm shocked, I say....SHOCKED!!!

That's the most telling post you've ever made.

 

[QUENTIN]

Yet another "I'm ferr FREEDUMB" thread by a radical RW poster?

I'm shocked, I say....SHOCKED!!!

Haha, you couldn't be more wrong. Way to assume based on nothing but a simple question about the Constitution.

So, now that a few people have weighed in from both sides of the aisle and various other persuasions, all but one stating they do support the Constitution, I'm curious for people's thoughts on this.

Here's what the Consitution says about treaties the US signs into law:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

Here's relevant text of the UN Convention Against Torture, signed by then-President Reagan on April 18, 1988 and ratified by Congress on October 21, 1994:

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 3

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.

2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Article 5
1. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.

Article 7

1. The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.

Article 10

1. Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment.

2. Each State Party shall include this prohibition in the rules or instructions issued in regard to the duties and functions of any such persons.

Article 11

1. Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture.

Article 12

1. Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committee in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Article 13

1. Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to and to have his case promptly and impartially examined its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given.

The United States is legally required by its Constitution to be bound to all treaties it signs and ratifies as the "Supreme law of the land." The UN torture treaty we signed, ratified (and helped write) legally compels all signatories to prosecute or extradite for prosecution any alleged torturers, including those complicit in torture and to investigate any serious allegations of torture.

Seems pretty cut and dry. If you support the Constitution, think the government and politicians are constrained by it and required to follow it, and the Constitution makes treaties we sign the supreme law of the land, and that treaty outlaws any form of torture under any circumstances and requires we investigate and prosecute anyone suspected of torture, you must oppose torture and support the prosecution of anyone involved in it, right? I don't see any two ways about it.

 

[tigerbob]

Yet another "I'm ferr FREEDUMB" thread by a radical RW poster?

I'm shocked, I say....SHOCKED!!!

Haha, you couldn't be more wrong. Way to assume based on nothing but a simple question about the Constitution.

So, now that a few people have weighed in from both sides of the aisle and various other persuasions, all but one stating they do support the Constitution, I'm curious for people's thoughts on this.

Here's what the Consitution says about treaties the US signs into law:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

Here's relevant text of the UN Convention Against Torture, signed by then-President Reagan on April 18, 1988 and ratified by Congress on October 21, 1994:

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 3

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.

2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Article 5
1. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.

Article 7

1. The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.

Article 10

1. Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment.

2. Each State Party shall include this prohibition in the rules or instructions issued in regard to the duties and functions of any such persons.

Article 11

1. Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture.

Article 12

1. Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committee in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Article 13

1. Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to and to have his case promptly and impartially examined its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given.

The United States is legally required by its Constitution to be bound to all treaties it signs and ratifies as the "Supreme law of the land." The UN torture treaty we signed, ratified (and helped write) legally compels all signatories to prosecute or extradite for prosecution any alleged torturers, including those complicit in torture and to investigate any serious allegations of torture.

Seems pretty cut and dry. If you support the Constitution, think the government and politicians are constrained by it and required to follow it, and the Constitution makes treaties we sign the supreme law of the land, and that treaty outlaws any form of torture under any circumstances and requires we investigate and prosecute anyone suspected of torture, you must oppose torture and support the prosecution of anyone involved in it, right? I don't see any two ways about it.

Ah, the point emerges.

And yes, you're absolutely right.

On the other hand, I am prepared (somewhat reluctantly) to turn a blind eye to using unpleasant means to extract from known terrorists information that may save lives.

The Constitution, like I said, is not perfect. Nor for that matter am I.

 

[Sheldon]

Yep. The Preamble is a thing of beauty and the seven articles are well laid-out. The three-branch bi-partisan system works well even with its flaws. Although if I was writing it I would have added an Amendment explicitly outlawing slavery and disenfranchisement based on race and gender etc, worded the Second differently, made an explicit separation between church and state, and given some kind of definition of general welfare.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Yet another "I'm ferr FREEDUMB" thread by a radical RW poster?

I'm shocked, I say....SHOCKED!!!

Haha, you couldn't be more wrong. Way to assume based on nothing but a simple question about the Constitution.

So, now that a few people have weighed in from both sides of the aisle and various other persuasions, all but one stating they do support the Constitution, I'm curious for people's thoughts on this.

Here's what the Consitution says about treaties the US signs into law:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

Here's relevant text of the UN Convention Against Torture, signed by then-President Reagan on April 18, 1988 and ratified by Congress on October 21, 1994:

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 3

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.

2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Article 5
1. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.

Article 7

1. The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.

Article 10

1. Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment.

2. Each State Party shall include this prohibition in the rules or instructions issued in regard to the duties and functions of any such persons.

Article 11

1. Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture.

Article 12

1. Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committee in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Article 13

1. Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to and to have his case promptly and impartially examined its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given.

The United States is legally required by its Constitution to be bound to all treaties it signs and ratifies as the "Supreme law of the land." The UN torture treaty we signed, ratified (and helped write) legally compels all signatories to prosecute or extradite for prosecution any alleged torturers, including those complicit in torture and to investigate any serious allegations of torture.

Seems pretty cut and dry. If you support the Constitution, think the government and politicians are constrained by it and required to follow it, and the Constitution makes treaties we sign the supreme law of the land, and that treaty outlaws any form of torture under any circumstances and requires we investigate and prosecute anyone suspected of torture, you must oppose torture and support the prosecution of anyone involved in it, right? I don't see any two ways about it.

Are you intentionally lying to score some kind of points or do you not understand your c-p of the treaty on torture?

At no point did it say, unless it's in a non-highleghted section, that the treaty outlaws all forms of torture.

but hey, if you want to put Clinton, Bush, Obama in chains, be my guest.

Actually, you can go all the way back to Reagan and pick up anyone involved with Navy SEALS, pilots and Airforce pilots. Cuz they all get sunk in water.

 

[QUENTIN]

Yet another "I'm ferr FREEDUMB" thread by a radical RW poster?

I'm shocked, I say....SHOCKED!!!

Haha, you couldn't be more wrong. Way to assume based on nothing but a simple question about the Constitution.

So, now that a few people have weighed in from both sides of the aisle and various other persuasions, all but one stating they do support the Constitution, I'm curious for people's thoughts on this.

Here's what the Consitution says about treaties the US signs into law:



Here's relevant text of the UN Convention Against Torture, signed by then-President Reagan on April 18, 1988 and ratified by Congress on October 21, 1994:

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 3

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.

2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Article 5
1. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.

Article 7

1. The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.

Article 10

1. Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment.

2. Each State Party shall include this prohibition in the rules or instructions issued in regard to the duties and functions of any such persons.

Article 11

1. Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture.

Article 12

1. Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committee in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Article 13

1. Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to and to have his case promptly and impartially examined its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given.

The United States is legally required by its Constitution to be bound to all treaties it signs and ratifies as the "Supreme law of the land." The UN torture treaty we signed, ratified (and helped write) legally compels all signatories to prosecute or extradite for prosecution any alleged torturers, including those complicit in torture and to investigate any serious allegations of torture.

Seems pretty cut and dry. If you support the Constitution, think the government and politicians are constrained by it and required to follow it, and the Constitution makes treaties we sign the supreme law of the land, and that treaty outlaws any form of torture under any circumstances and requires we investigate and prosecute anyone suspected of torture, you must oppose torture and support the prosecution of anyone involved in it, right? I don't see any two ways about it.

Are you intentionally lying to score some kind of points or do you not understand your c-p of the treaty on torture?

At no point did it say, unless it's in a non-highleghted section, that the treaty outlaws all forms of torture.

Read it. The entire point is to outlaw all forms of torture. All forms of torture are explicitly outlawed and in a bolded section. Again:

Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.

Torture is defined as:

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Even those who argue waterboarding shouldn't be classified or is somehow distinct from what we consider torture must admit it meets the classification of the treaty, which is the supreme law of our land.

but hey, if you want to put Clinton, Bush, Obama in chains, be my guest.

It's not about putting people in chains. It's about following the Constitution because it is the basis of our society and government, where government derives its power, and it demands that the constraints it places on government power be followed.

Whether they are or not practically followed (certainly this isn't the only illegal, unconstitutional thing we engage in) if one supports as those polled do and most claim, to support the Constitution than one necessarily and inherently supports abiding by this law. There's not really any escaping it. "I support torture" is a statement that implicitly also states "I do not support following the Constitution as it is plainly and inarguably written." (since unlike some controversial passages, the declarative here couldn't be plainer).

If following the Constitution and adhering to the laws therein leads to the prosecution and conviction of Clinton, Bush, and Obama for authorizing torture, so be it. We are a nation of laws, not men. The President is not above the law. If they didn't want to do the time, they shouldn't have done the crime.

Actually, you can go all the way back to Reagan and pick up anyone involved with Navy SEALS, pilots and Airforce pilots. Cuz they all get sunk in water.

Training in a controlled environment, for the purposes of training rather than punishment or to extract actual intelligence, does not meet the definition of torture so it's irrelevant here and the treaty doesn't apply to it.