Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
but hey, if you want to put Clinton, Bush, Obama in chains, be my guest.
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?
"A lawyer's primer: If you don't have the law, you argue the facts; if you don't have the facts, you argue the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, then you argue the Constitution!”
- Anonymous
By the time these kinds of threads play thenselves out - they take a seemingly innocent, "motherhood" issue, like believing in the Constitution, and then attempt to impose their own "hidden" agenda.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?
Unfortunately, their only real interest referring to the Constitution is to attempt to "legitimize" their personal "hobby-horse!"
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:
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:
Torture is defined as:
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.
By the time these kinds of threads play thenselves out - they take a seemingly innocent, "motherhood" issue, like believing in the Constitution, and then attempt to impose their own "hidden" agenda.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?
Unfortunately, their only real interest referring to the Constitution is to attempt to "legitimize" their personal "hobby-horse!"
Yet another "I'm ferr FREEDUMB" thread by a radical RW poster?
I'm shocked, I say....SHOCKED!!!
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:
Torture is defined as:
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.
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.
This is a difference of opinions.
Wiser men than us decided waterboarding did not fit the definition of torture.
then politics got involved and this is a dead issue.
So what do you do when the enemy doesn't follow that treaty?
I think beheading is much worse than waterboarding.
So what do you do when the enemy doesn't follow that treaty?
I think beheading is much worse than waterboarding.
Aside from the fact that treaties arent signed into law...Here's what the Consitution says about treaties the US signs into law:
Unless such a thing is explicitly stated in the language of the treaty, Congress has no power to do this.If you think the law is impractical, you should advocate for the Congress to officially withdraw from the treaty so that we are not bound by it.So what do you do when the enemy doesn't follow that treaty?
I think beheading is much worse than waterboarding.
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.
Doubtful. You go to war, you open yourself up to being killed.Strictly speaking shooting him through the head was a violation of bin Laden's UN Convention rights...
So what do you do when the enemy doesn't follow that treaty?
I think beheading is much worse than waterboarding.
Aside from the fact that treaties arent signed into law...Here's what the Consitution says about treaties the US signs into law:
You know that the supremacy clause applies to the states, when there's a conflict between state and federals laws/actions - right?
You know that it doesnt put US law and treaties w/ other countries on the same legal level as the US Constitution - right?
all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land
Unless such a thing is explicitly stated in the language of the treaty, Congress has no power to do this.If you think the law is impractical, you should advocate for the Congress to officially withdraw from the treaty so that we are not bound by it.So what do you do when the enemy doesn't follow that treaty?
I think beheading is much worse than waterboarding.
