It is unconstitutional to not return slaves to their owners

[Yurt]

Constitution on Slavery "Clearly Sanctioned

..

Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secess...onslavery.html

the main argument regarding torture is that it is unconstitutional and bush should be tried....i don't believe such a blind following of the constitution is a good thing for this country, the constitution is not a suicide pact. so those that say we cannot torture at all because of treaties which are the supreme law of the land vis a vis the constitution....would you also be good little citizens and return slaves to their rightful owners....

of course the 13th has done away that....still....you are arguing that you would not violate the constitution for to do so harms this country and makes the constitution worthless....so, you would all of course be good little citizens and return slaves, worth only 3/5 of a white person, to their rightful owners.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Your reasoning is as flawed as that of Bybee and Yoo. Unless you're attempting reductio ad absurdium to prove that torture IS unconstitutional. And since no one is actually challenging the constitutionality of Title 18, Chapter 113C of the US Code, your argument is irrelevant.

 

[American Horse]

Constitution on Slavery "Clearly Sanctioned

..

Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secess...onslavery.html

the main argument regarding torture is that it is unconstitutional and bush should be tried....i don't believe such a blind following of the constitution is a good thing for this country, the constitution is not a suicide pact. so those that say we cannot torture at all because of treaties which are the supreme law of the land vis a vis the constitution....would you also be good little citizens and return slaves to their rightful owners....

of course the 13th has done away that....still....you are arguing that you would not violate the constitution for to do so harms this country and makes the constitution worthless....so, you would all of course be good little citizens and return slaves, worth only 3/5 of a white person, to their rightful owners.

The constituion recognized that slavery existed. That had to be done if the Union was to be become a reality, and it was the best they could do at the time. Reducing the recognition of slaves for apportionment reasons was a way of limiting the weight of the vote in the Southern states where slavery was an institution. To not do so would mean that by propogating a growing slave population the Southern states would've benefited with more congressional districts in congress, while an ever larger proportion of the population would not have shared in that representation.

Clearly, America was born with a congenital birth defect similar in some ways to conjoined infant twins sharing the same vital organs physically and psychically. That defect was slavery. There was a “Faustian Bargain”, a deal with the 'devil' made to ‘yank this defective infant' from the 'womb' of history. The reparative surgery would have to come later, and it did; eighty four years later the crisis came to a “head” and it was resolved as all great unresolved issues must be.

It's easy to understand their greater purpose. It's also easy to turn the whole affair around, despoiling it. I just wonder if they were aware how in the future they would by some be seen more aligned with the devil than with the angels. I would guess they foresaw that too.....

.

 

[tigerbob]

I have a shorter answer. Who gives a fuck?

 

[American Horse]

I have a shorter answer. Who gives a fuck?

I like short answers. And I don't care much about any comparison with torture, which doesn't apply, which is why I ignored that aspect. But I do care about the intent in the constituiion of that old canard of 3/5th citizenship of slaves.

.

 

[Yurt]

I have a shorter answer. Who gives a fuck?

so torture is really a non constitutional issue....shouldn't even mention the constitution....

i mean, who gives a fuck about the constitution

 

[Yurt]

Your reasoning is as flawed as that of Bybee and Yoo. Unless you're attempting reductio ad absurdium to prove that torture IS unconstitutional. And since no one is actually challenging the constitutionality of Title 18, Chapter 113C of the US Code, your argument is irrelevant.

answer the question:

would you have returned the slaves or would you have pissed on the constitution by not returning the slaves?

simple really

 

[Yurt]

Constitution on Slavery "Clearly Sanctioned

..

Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secess...onslavery.html

the main argument regarding torture is that it is unconstitutional and bush should be tried....i don't believe such a blind following of the constitution is a good thing for this country, the constitution is not a suicide pact. so those that say we cannot torture at all because of treaties which are the supreme law of the land vis a vis the constitution....would you also be good little citizens and return slaves to their rightful owners....

of course the 13th has done away that....still....you are arguing that you would not violate the constitution for to do so harms this country and makes the constitution worthless....so, you would all of course be good little citizens and return slaves, worth only 3/5 of a white person, to their rightful owners.

The constituion recognized that slavery existed. That had to be done if the Union was to be become a reality, and it was the best they could do at the time. Reducing the recognition of slaves for apportionment reasons was a way of limiting the weight of the vote in the Southern states where slavery was an institution. To not do so would mean that by propogating a growing slave population the Southern states would've benefited with more congressional districts in congress, while an ever larger proportion of the population would not have shared in that representation.

Clearly, America was born with a congenital birth defect similar in some ways to conjoined infant twins sharing the same vital organs physically and psychically. That defect was slavery. There was a “Faustian Bargain”, a deal with the 'devil' made to ‘yank this defective infant' from the 'womb' of history. The reparative surgery would have to come later, and it did; eighty four years later the crisis came to a “head” and it was resolved as all great unresolved issues must be.

It's easy to understand their greater purpose. It's also easy to turn the whole affair around, despoiling it. I just wonder if they were aware how in the future they would by some be seen more aligned with the devil than with the angels. I would guess they foresaw that too.....

.

so, it was ok, you agree that the returning slaves was the right thing to do....you would have returned slaves to their owner because you would not violate the constitution....

 

[American Horse]

so, it was ok, you agree that the returning slaves was the right thing to do....you would have returned slaves to their owner because you would not violate the constitution....

Sorry Yurt, I can't buy either of these assumptions. I have to agree with you and would have been in conflict with the constitution by not returning slaves as property to their owners. I believe the terrorists we have captured lie outside our constituion since they are not US citizens, and outside the geneva conventions of war because they are terrorists and do not conduct themselves as uniformed soldiers, do not follow the rules of the conventions with regard to civilians, and are unlawful combatants. I furthermore do not believe they were tortured, but once in our legal system and granted that status, they would be protected from cruel and unusual punishment within our legal system. They should be tried in military tribunals, and it's a mistake to handle them in any other way.

 

[Yurt]

so, it was ok, you agree that the returning slaves was the right thing to do....you would have returned slaves to their owner because you would not violate the constitution....

Sorry Yurt, I can't buy either of these assumptions. I have to agree with you and would have been in conflict with the constitution by not returning slaves as property to their owners. I believe the terrorists we have captured lie outside our constituion since they are not US citizens, and outside the geneva conventions of war because they are terrorists and do not conduct themselves as uniformed soldiers, do not follow the rules of the conventions with regard to civilians, and are unlawful combatants. I furthermore do not believe they were tortured, but once in our legal system and granted that status, they would be protected from cruel and unusual punishment within our legal system. They should be tried in military tribunals, and it's a mistake to handle them in any other way.

we signed onto the UN charter/treaty against torture....it is not bilateral... the geneva convention has little or nothing to do with the current torture issue

seriously, look it up

my point with this thread is to show the hypocrisy of the left when the scream about the torture, regardless if that torture saved one life, because torture violates that treaty, which indirectly violates the constitution as treaties are the supreme law of the land.

then the left or those who are against torture solely based on the constitution must also admit they would return slaves to their rightful owner.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Your reasoning is as flawed as that of Bybee and Yoo. Unless you're attempting reductio ad absurdium to prove that torture IS unconstitutional. And since no one is actually challenging the constitutionality of Title 18, Chapter 113C of the US Code, your argument is irrelevant.

answer the question:

would you have returned the slaves or would you have pissed on the constitution by not returning the slaves?

simple really

Most straw-man arguments are simple. Rather like the minds of those who formulate them. And it seems to me that only someone with the mentality of a slave-owner would find this, or any other argument, in favor of torture palatable.

 

[Bullypulpit]

so, it was ok, you agree that the returning slaves was the right thing to do....you would have returned slaves to their owner because you would not violate the constitution....

Sorry Yurt, I can't buy either of these assumptions. I have to agree with you and would have been in conflict with the constitution by not returning slaves as property to their owners. I believe the terrorists we have captured lie outside our constituion since they are not US citizens, and outside the geneva conventions of war because they are terrorists and do not conduct themselves as uniformed soldiers, do not follow the rules of the conventions with regard to civilians, and are unlawful combatants. I furthermore do not believe they were tortured, but once in our legal system and granted that status, they would be protected from cruel and unusual punishment within our legal system. They should be tried in military tribunals, and it's a mistake to handle them in any other way.

Well, there was that decision...Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that stated Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions DOES apply to detainees at GITMO and, except in times of "rebellion or invasion" habeas corpus may not be suspended.

 

[tigerbob]

I have a shorter answer. Who gives a fuck?

so torture is really a non constitutional issue....shouldn't even mention the constitution....

i mean, who gives a fuck about the constitution

No, the parallel you've drawn is a non issue, a manufactured argument.

 

[JohnStOnge]

I don't think the interrogation techniques utilized by those questioning Islamists meet any reasonable definition of torture. In any case, those who made the decisions did not consider them torture. The point was to employ aggressive techiques that are not torture. At no point did they decide that it was OK to "torture" detainees.

To use an analogy I used in another thread: It's kind of like the concept of cruel and unusual punishment. Opinions vary on what "cruel and unusual punishment" is. Nobody intended to violate the Constitution prior to 1976 when they implemented the death penalty. Somebody argued that it was cruel and unusual punishment and prevailed at the Supreme Court level so for a while the death penalty was "unconstitutional." Later the Supreme Court reversed itself and now it's not.

 

[JohnStOnge]

On the other issue involved in the question: Of COURSE there are situations in which it's morally justifiable to violate the laws of whatever civlization one finds oneself part of. Not hard to get agreement, for instance, that a German citizen helping Jews evade the authorities of their nation was doing the right thing. This nation's founders violated British Law.

But I think that, when we have a Constitution that can be changed through the Amendment process, it's important that at least government entities follow the Constitution. They don't. Most notably, the Supreme Court doesn't because it's adopted the "Living Constitution" approach whereby the Court controls the Constitution rather than the Constitution controlling the Court. But they should.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I don't think the interrogation techniques utilized by those questioning Islamists meet any reasonable definition of torture. In any case, those who made the decisions did not consider them torture. The point was to employ aggressive techiques that are not torture. At no point did they decide that it was OK to "torture" detainees.

To use an analogy I used in another thread: It's kind of like the concept of cruel and unusual punishment. Opinions vary on what "cruel and unusual punishment" is. Nobody intended to violate the Constitution prior to 1976 when they implemented the death penalty. Somebody argued that it was cruel and unusual punishment and prevailed at the Supreme Court level so for a while the death penalty was "unconstitutional." Later the Supreme Court reversed itself and now it's not.

Your so called thoughts on the matter are irrelevant. The law is clear.

Article 1, Para 1 of the UN Convention Against Torture states,

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.

Common Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention specifically prohibits torture. And for those of you whi still claim that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to detainees, the SCOTUS ruled otherwise in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

In 2007,Major General John L. Fugh USA(Ret.), Rear Admiral Don Gutter USN(Ret), Rear Admiral John D. Hutson USN(Ret), and Brigadier General David M. Brahms USMC(Ret), all former Judge Advocates General for their respective services, wrote the following in a letter to Senator Patrick Leahy regarding the confirmation hearings for former Attorney General Michael Mukasey:

The Rule of Law is fundamental to our existence as a civilized nation. The Rule of Law is not a goal which we merely aspire to achieve; it is the floor below which we must not sink. For the Rule of Law to function effectively, however, it must provide actual rules that can be followed. In this instance, the relevant rule - the law - has long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise - or even to give credence to such a suggestion - represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation.

Furthermore, in 2006, in response to questions submitted by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Major General Scott Black, U.S. Army Judge Advocate General, Major General Jack Rives, U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General, Rear Admiral Bruce MacDonald, U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General, and Brigadier Gen. Kevin Sandkuhler, Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps all stated unanimously that waterboarding is "...inhumane and illegal and would constitute a violation of international law, to include Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions."

Title 18, Chapter 113C, Sec 2340 of the US Code defines torture thus,

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

 

[Yurt]

so bully would have been a good little citizen and returned slaves to their owners...

 

[Yurt]

the point is not a strawman or manufactured argument. it is entirely valid as the question is....is there a time that it was right to violate the constitution. that is a very real situation and argument. prohibition and returning slaves. to drink and not return slaves were in fact a violation of the constitution.

you dismiss the point because you know to answer it blows your entire argument out the window.

 

[Bullypulpit]

so bully would have been a good little citizen and returned slaves to their owners...

In a word, No.

the point is not a strawman or manufactured argument. it is entirely valid as the question is....is there a time that it was right to violate the constitution. that is a very real situation and argument. prohibition and returning slaves. to drink and not return slaves were in fact a violation of the constitution.

you dismiss the point because you know to answer it blows your entire argument out the window.

Your argument IS a straw man as the constitutionality of US law, Title 18, Chapter113C , is not in question. Nor is that of the treaties banning torture to which the US is signatory to as they carry the full weight and authority of US law as set forth in the Constitution.

An equally valid question for you to answer then would be, "Have you stopped torturing your slaves?"

 

[Yurt]

the question is valid...you claim one should never violate the constitution

obviously you now admit that there was a time that violating the constitution was actually the right thing to do.

it is clear that you now state that at one time violating the constitution was right. how can you reconcile that belief and yet froth at the mouth over torture? either it is always right to obey the constitution or as you now admit, there are times when violating the constitution is proper.