Do you support the Constitution?

[Flagwavrusa]

Strictly speaking shooting him through the head was a violation of bin Laden's UN Convention rights...

Doubtful. You go to war, you open yourself up to being killed.

Not according to the UN.

[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.]

 

[peach174]

Our Constitution is the only thing that is holding back the extreme far left from making us a totalitarian government. This why they keep saying that it is irrelevant because it is old and written by old white men and keep trying to sway us into getting rid of it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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...

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?

The President signs a treaty once it has been ratified by the Senate.

The President signs the treaty and then presents it to the senate for ratification.
If the senate ratifies the treaty, then the terms and conditions of that treaty are in force.

The Constitution explicitly states:
all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

That doesn't mean those treaties are on equal footing with the Constitution, it means the Constitution declares that they are binding law of the country (like any other US law that isn't explicitly in the Constitution).

Read the entire clause

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; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding

This states the supremacy of the Constitution, Federal law and INternatinal treaty over the courts, laws and actions of the states; the statement is made wholly in that context - the language here applies to the states, not the Federal government.

US law is not, and cannot be, the supreme law of the land in any other way, as the US Constitution always trumps US law. Same applies to treaties.

The Supremacy clause makes all ratified treaties legally binding in all the states.

Yes. No state may act in violation of the US constitutution, US law or a treaty that the US is part of.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, seems to be a semantic issue.

The point is your argument is unsound.

You agree that we are bound by treaties we ratify, yes?

There's nothing in the US constitution that binds the federal government to any treaty.

 

[NoEconomist]

So what do you do when the enemy doesn't follow that treaty?
I think beheading is much worse than waterboarding.

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.

In the meantime, if you're advocating that the government torture people, you're openly advocating that the government ignore the Constitution and break the law with immunity.

Laws may not be perfect and we may not all agree with all of them, the guilty sometimes go free on technicalities for instance, but we are bound by them. Without them, we have lawlessness, which is chaos and anarchy. That's actually part of what's supposed to separate us from the roving tribes of guerilla fighters who behead people that you're talking about.

Its not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be.

Your argument is that because the Constitution recognizes and provides for the enforcement of ratified treaties that any treaty ratified carrys the compelling weight of a state interest. While this is true it doesn't make it the ONLY compelling state interest. The Constitution also provides for the common defense of ALL compelling state interests as well as national security. No treaty with a foreign body can nullify the States and their elected officials responsibility to act in the best interest of its people. Whether or not they have done this is a matter for the courts.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Unless such a thing is explicitly stated in the language of the treaty, Congress has no power to do this.

They can draw up and pass a bill that nullifies our commitment to the treaty,

They cannot. Foreign policy is the sole purview of the Executive.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Strictly speaking shooting him through the head was a violation of bin Laden's UN Convention rights...

Doubtful. You go to war, you open yourself up to being killed.

Not according to the UN.

[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.]

This doesnt apply.

 

[jgarden]

The Constitutionis provides a 18thC "liberal-denicratic" institutional framework that attempts to arbitrate between competing and often conflicting political, economic and social interests.

Unfortunately, the Constitution's crediblity in the eyes of the public, at any given time, is often dependent on the strengths/weaknesses of those persons charged with the responsbility of applying it on a "day-to-day" basis.

The underlying question is whether the Constitution has intrinic worth, or is it only as good as the ability of "rank-and-file" politicians and administrators to translate the "good intensions" into "good works!"

 

[007]

Yes, I do believe our constitution should be adhered to, to the letter. I just wish everyone thought as I do...

 

[Flopper]

The founding fathers clearly believed the Constitution should be a living document that changes as times change. They gave us an amendment process but we fail to use it. In the last 40 years we have had only one amendment, a change to the starting date of congressional salaries. We desperately need some kind of balanced budget amendment to force Congress to control spending. If the constitution is be remain a framework for our government, then it needs to be maintained.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

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

Do you realize that by saying the government should not be constrained by the Constitution that you actually support Jim Crow laws, discrimination, and the power of the government to ignore people based on any arbitrary criteria the person in charge makes up? That actually makes you the idiot in this thread, even if the person who started the thread is a radical right wing reactionary.

 

[signelect]

With all the imperfections and interpretations it is still be best thing going. What other country did what Americans did. It is the non-Americans that live here that are creating the problems and some of them have been elected to public office. Take your pick.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That is a good point.

If you actually remember that debate that came about after the so called torture was exposed you will recall that the Bush administration actually researched the applicable international and US laws in order to determine what, precisely, was legal. The problem actually came down to defining torture, and the only definition that applied was the one Congress wrote into the law after we signed the treaty you are mentioning, which defined torture so narrowly that some questionable practices were justifiable.

Treaties are the supreme law of the land, but Congress passes supplementary laws to refine how that law actually applies. If all we needed was the Constitution and the various treaties Congress would be redundant, and would not have to write any laws at all.

Some of what was outlined in the Woo memos meets my definition of torture, and some of it would be legal even in the US legal system. Nonetheless, what applies to the US is how Congress and US courts interprets the Constitution and the various treaties, not how foreign governments and courts do so.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is a good point.

Except that it isnt. The Supremacy Clause is made in reference to state actions, not actions ofthe Federal government.
Go back a page and check out my posts to that that effect.

Tortuing someone may very well violate a treaty, but violating a treaty does not violate the Constitution.

 

[JBeukema]

The government should not have been limited by COTUS at the beginning due to the language which forbid abolition.

The government should abide by COTUS insomuch as it constitutes good and fair Law and the People wish it to do so.

Should the People desire the nation and its government to evolve with the times to better suit their needs, desires, and beliefs, then it should do so. This might some day mean that COTUS will go the way of the Articles of Association and Articles of Confederation.

 

[JBeukema]

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

Which version?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.



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.

Not wiser men than us.

The administration was able to find a functionary within their office of legal counsel to provide them with a legal opinion that argued waterboarding didn't meet the definition of torture. That's just one man's legal opinion, it doesn't change the existing laws one bit, it's just one employee of the admin's interpretation of the law.

Legal scholarship and theory, at home and internationally, and with a 50-year-precedent, is clear that waterboarding inflicts "severe pain and suffering either physical or mental," which is why it was used in the first place. You'd have to stretch beyond the bounds of reason to argue it doesn't qualify there and Yoo, their functionary, is practically alone in the world of legal experts on his opinion.

Again, his opinion didn't change a thing, didn't make waterboarding legal. If you find a lawyer who'll tell you that killing your wife is legal if you do it in a fit of rage, that doesn't make it so and if you follow his advice you're still accountable when the cops and courts come calling.

And, under US law, he was arguably right. The treaty requires all signatories to criminalize torture in their legal code, and the definition Congress came up with was extremely narrow and required a person to be in extreme pain to the point of bodily harm. Under that definition I could prosecute doctors for torture because they did not treat my kidney stones with pain meds until after they had a chance to examine me and determine that I actually had them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And, under US law, he was arguably right. The treaty requires all signatories to criminalize torture in their legal code...

You know that no treaty can force Congress to pass a law - right?

 

[JBeukema]

Wiser men than us decided waterboarding did not fit the definition of torture.

After convicting people of torture for waterboarding in the past

But it's different when we do it, right?

 

[Mr Liberty]

The constitution of the United States is null and void. The action of the elected representatives has made it so.

--All new deal programs
--Medicare
--Social Security
--Health care
--Patriot act
--Student loans
--Fannie and Freddie
--Federal Reserve
--Undeclared wars
--Many other acts
The question is, what will they do next? When the dollar fails, what emergency measures will the federal government take? Will they suspend habeas corpus? Will rioting and civil lead to the cancelling of elections? Is there a limit to what we will let them do? Lokk at what they have already done, all to solve our problems. This is what happens when the "the end justifies the means".

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I support it in the sense that it limits the government in some regard, but I don't support the Constitution in and of itself. I think the Articles of Confederation were much preferable.