Scalia says courts shouldn't prohibit torture

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
...
Hayabusa and I are harping on this point because your arguments are getting very near to saying that torture, in any form, at any time, and for any reason, is NEVER justifiable.

All we're doing is presenting a situation in which it is clearly justifiable, in an attempt to refute that argument. If torture is acceptable in some situations, we should be defining what situations those are, not arguing that torture is never justified.

In the situation Hayabusa offered, torturing the enemy is completely in the right, for the same reason that self-defense is morally right.

Regardless of the creative work, there are some absolutes. No hypothetical situation could compel me, or most people I would hope, to say that raping someone is the right solution, or that murdering them (I say murder, not kill) is the right solution.

I understand what you're trying to do, but like I said, I don't think you're making the argument you think you are making. The fact that there are some situations where you or I may resort to torturing someone does NOT mean it would be "justified"...and it does not mean I think we should make policy around those situations. And you know it, which is why you keep asking us to put ourselves into the fantasy scenarios...you're trying to get people to react on an emotional level instead of logically or ethically. I hope you aren't egotistical enough to be unable to distinguish between what you might do if pushed to the edge and what a moral person SHOULD do.

And as uneasy as some people might all be with the idea, the legal system is supposed to be based on ideals...not emotion. To use Hayabusa's scenario as an example, I think most people might understand a parent going to extreme lengths if their kid is in danger...but do you honestly think we should write a law that says it's OK for parents to torture people if they feel their kids are being threatened? Even if there are some moral absolutes, most people have it within them to skirt moral boundaries if they think it's necessary...that doesn't mean our legal system should be based around that.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Has he forgotten that US law bans torture? And does not allow torture under any circumstances? Among other laws the US is signatory to the Geneva Convention (which was ratified and its provisions have been codified into US law) and as a signatory we are bound by it's tenets unless they directly conflict with the US Constitution. By condoning torture we are disobeying US laws. Is that what he is advocating?

uh, no, he said the constitution, rather than regular public laws and treaties, does not ban torture. regular public laws and treaties != constitution.

Originally posted by: Harvey
Let's get down to reality, folks. The first paragraph of the article at the OP's link says:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia rejected the notion that US courts have any control over the actions of American troops at Guantanamo Bay, argued that torture of terror detainees is not banned under the US Constitution and insisted that the high court has no obligation to act as a moral beacon for other nations.

U.S. Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C, § 2340 outlaws torture, as defined here:


Torture is clearly illegal under U.S. law, and U.S. courts clearly have jurisdiction over any citizen of the U.S. who commits torture anywhere in the world, including the Traitor in Chief.

If the report accurately states Scalia's position, he's full of shit. :|

again, that's not the constitution.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

again, that's not the constitution.

If, as stated in the first sentence of the quote is accruate thata Scalia "rejected the notion that US courts have any control over the actions of American troops at Guantanamo Bay," it most certainly is stated as a conclusion.

If that is what he believes, again, he's full of shit. :|

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Has he forgotten that US law bans torture? And does not allow torture under any circumstances? Among other laws the US is signatory to the Geneva Convention (which was ratified and its provisions have been codified into US law) and as a signatory we are bound by it's tenets unless they directly conflict with the US Constitution. By condoning torture we are disobeying US laws. Is that what he is advocating?

uh, no, he said the constitution, rather than regular public laws and treaties, does not ban torture. regular public laws and treaties != constitution.

Originally posted by: Harvey
Let's get down to reality, folks. The first paragraph of the article at the OP's link says:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia rejected the notion that US courts have any control over the actions of American troops at Guantanamo Bay, argued that torture of terror detainees is not banned under the US Constitution and insisted that the high court has no obligation to act as a moral beacon for other nations.

U.S. Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C, § 2340 outlaws torture, as defined here:


Torture is clearly illegal under U.S. law, and U.S. courts clearly have jurisdiction over any citizen of the U.S. who commits torture anywhere in the world, including the Traitor in Chief.

If the report accurately states Scalia's position, he's full of shit. :|

again, that's not the constitution.

Actually....it is part of the Constitution:

Article I Section VIII -Powers of Congress:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Congress has been ordained as the law making branch. They made laws and entered into treaties against torture therefore making torture unconstitutional.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Has he forgotten that US law bans torture? And does not allow torture under any circumstances? Among other laws the US is signatory to the Geneva Convention (which was ratified and its provisions have been codified into US law) and as a signatory we are bound by it's tenets unless they directly conflict with the US Constitution. By condoning torture we are disobeying US laws. Is that what he is advocating?

uh, no, he said the constitution, rather than regular public laws and treaties, does not ban torture. regular public laws and treaties != constitution.

Originally posted by: Harvey
Let's get down to reality, folks. The first paragraph of the article at the OP's link says:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia rejected the notion that US courts have any control over the actions of American troops at Guantanamo Bay, argued that torture of terror detainees is not banned under the US Constitution and insisted that the high court has no obligation to act as a moral beacon for other nations.

U.S. Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C, § 2340 outlaws torture, as defined here:


Torture is clearly illegal under U.S. law, and U.S. courts clearly have jurisdiction over any citizen of the U.S. who commits torture anywhere in the world, including the Traitor in Chief.

If the report accurately states Scalia's position, he's full of shit. :|

again, that's not the constitution.

All Courts in the world of English Common Law use Precedence and the full body of Laws to make decisions, this includes the US. No Court relies solely on a Constitutional Document to draw all their conclusions from.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Has he forgotten that US law bans torture? And does not allow torture under any circumstances? Among other laws the US is signatory to the Geneva Convention (which was ratified and its provisions have been codified into US law) and as a signatory we are bound by it's tenets unless they directly conflict with the US Constitution. By condoning torture we are disobeying US laws. Is that what he is advocating?

uh, no, he said the constitution, rather than regular public laws and treaties, does not ban torture. regular public laws and treaties != constitution.

Originally posted by: Harvey
Let's get down to reality, folks. The first paragraph of the article at the OP's link says:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia rejected the notion that US courts have any control over the actions of American troops at Guantanamo Bay, argued that torture of terror detainees is not banned under the US Constitution and insisted that the high court has no obligation to act as a moral beacon for other nations.

U.S. Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C, § 2340 outlaws torture, as defined here:


Torture is clearly illegal under U.S. law, and U.S. courts clearly have jurisdiction over any citizen of the U.S. who commits torture anywhere in the world, including the Traitor in Chief.

If the report accurately states Scalia's position, he's full of shit. :|

again, that's not the constitution.

Actually....it is part of the Constitution:

Article I Section VIII -Powers of Congress:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Congress has been ordained as the law making branch. They made laws and entered into treaties against torture therefore making torture unconstitutional.

Thank you. That should have been obvious and I've been arguing with this concept as the basis.

Is Scalia trying to legislate from the bench - an activist judge? Why does everyone refer to him as a constructionist or textual judge?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ElFenix

again, that's not the constitution.

If, as stated in the first sentence of the quote is accruate thata Scalia "rejected the notion that US courts have any control over the actions of American troops at Guantanamo Bay," it most certainly is stated as a conclusion.

If that is what he believes, again, he's full of shit. :|

If Congress makes a law stating that someone can't be tortured abroad, the legal system can certainly try them. If that weren't the case then private citizens who engage in terrorism are equally unaccountable. Now if THAT is what he's pushing I'd like to see the justification for upholding one thing over another.

If the actions of soldiers or others at Guantanamo cannot be held against them, then it applies to all others. His contention is ridiculous.

 

[thraashman]

So does this mean that if a soldier is stationed at Gitmo he's allowed to commit fraud, tax evasion, murder, statutory rape, vandalism, or more? Because it sounds like Scalia is basically saying that despite being a US territory that if it's not actually part of the US, then laws don't apply there. Foreign citizens visiting the US are offered the same protections of the Constitution that citizens are, so captives at gitmo should be as well.

Currently I'm hoping Scalia suffers from a debilitating stroke and is unable to continue serving, and I want this to happen approximately 12 months from now after a new, Democrat President is in office.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Congress has been ordained as the law making branch. They made laws and entered into treaties against torture therefore making torture unconstitutional.

you've just claimed that all public laws of the united states are part of the constitution. did you really fail civics that badly?

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ElFenix

again, that's not the constitution.

If, as stated in the first sentence of the quote is accruate thata Scalia "rejected the notion that US courts have any control over the actions of American troops at Guantanamo Bay," it most certainly is stated as a conclusion.

If that is what he believes, again, he's full of shit. :|

assuming you meant 'constitution' and not 'conclusion,' the US Code provision you cited to is not part of the US Constitution. if you meant to say 'conclusion,' then i'm not sure what you're referring to.

i don't know why people are having a hard time with that.

Originally posted by: sandorski

All Courts in the world of English Common Law use Precedence and the full body of Laws to make decisions, this includes the US. No Court relies solely on a Constitutional Document to draw all their conclusions from.

even if true, it doesn't make regular US public laws part of the written constitution. they would have some bearing on the interpretation. but seeing as how scalia doesn't like anything but black and white 220 year old document, i don't think he'd agree. at least in principle, even if he is informed by his life and times which happened in the here and now.

Originally posted by: thraashman
So does this mean that if a soldier is stationed at Gitmo he's allowed to commit fraud, tax evasion, murder, statutory rape, vandalism, or more? Because it sounds like Scalia is basically saying that despite being a US territory that if it's not actually part of the US, then laws don't apply there. Foreign citizens visiting the US are offered the same protections of the Constitution that citizens are, so captives at gitmo should be as well.

i guess so. it'd almost be neat to do it and then argue his words against him.

 

[LtPage1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Nah, he's not really that far off. The constitution doesn't specifically bar torture and I think he's right about that. The thing is that the constitution doesn't bar murder either and yet that's still illegal. We have passed other laws and entered other agreements that have made torture illegal... so the constitutional issue isn't really particularly important.

As far as the US courts not having any jurisdiction over Gitmo, well he's lost that fight several times now. That has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard... since the treaty we signed says that the US has complete jurisdiction over Gitmo. As was asked in oral arguments in one of those cases, if US law doesn't hold there, what law possibly could? Cuban? hahahaha.

The Constitution holds treaties ratified by the Senate as law. We ratified the UN torture ban treaty.

Case fucking closed. Scalia will always rule in favor of giving more power to the executive at the expense of the rule of law.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Congress has been ordained as the law making branch. They made laws and entered into treaties against torture therefore making torture unconstitutional.

you've just claimed that all public laws of the united states are part of the constitution. did you really fail civics that badly?

Until they are decided to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS....they are considered constitutional. That is the only function of the SCOTUS. Maybe you should open your civics book a little more frequently.

Of course, the Bush administration could just let one of these cases actually go to trial without screaming national security if they truly wanted to determine the constitutionality beyond the shadow of a doubt. But we all know that that isn't going to happen.

 

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
While I don't think that Scalia is a stupid man by any measure....your assertion that his position and/or education make him smarter than everyone on these boards is...well....stupid.

Let's be honest here. Scalia is a wee bit smarter than your average P&N visitor. And I'd wager that he's smarter than anyone who has posted in this thread (myself included). You don't make your way to Chief Justice of the USSC on stupidity.

Just because you disagree with his opinion doesn't make him an imbecile.

How smart can Scalia be?

He's been hunting with Dick Cheney:Q:laugh::thumbsdown:

Now that's dumb

 

[AAman]

I've met Scalia and listened to his canned speech (in law school)...he's pretty much a nobody intellectually, an average guy and an extreme right-wing activist who creates 'original' meanings of the Constitution out of the air.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: LtPage1

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Nah, he's not really that far off. The constitution doesn't specifically bar torture and I think he's right about that. The thing is that the constitution doesn't bar murder either and yet that's still illegal. We have passed other laws and entered other agreements that have made torture illegal... so the constitutional issue isn't really particularly important.

As far as the US courts not having any jurisdiction over Gitmo, well he's lost that fight several times now. That has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard... since the treaty we signed says that the US has complete jurisdiction over Gitmo. As was asked in oral arguments in one of those cases, if US law doesn't hold there, what law possibly could? Cuban? hahahaha.

The Constitution holds treaties ratified by the Senate as law. We ratified the UN torture ban treaty.

Case fucking closed. Scalia will always rule in favor of giving more power to the executive at the expense of the rule of law.

Right, they are held as law... as in equal to a federal statute, not equal to the constitution. The fact that the constitution doesn't specifically bar torture (which Scalia is right about) doesn't make it any less illegal, it just makes it illegal for a different reason. Rape isn't specifically disallowed by the constitution either, but it doesn't mean that we don't have a whole host of other laws that make it so. Torture under our laws is never permissable. If some people want to change those laws, I encourage you to try. Until those laws are changed however the executive is oath bound to follow them.

Case closed.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Congress has been ordained as the law making branch. They made laws and entered into treaties against torture therefore making torture unconstitutional.

you've just claimed that all public laws of the united states are part of the constitution. did you really fail civics that badly?

Until they are decided to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS....they are considered constitutional. That is the only function of the SCOTUS. Maybe you should open your civics book a little more frequently.

Of course, the Bush administration could just let one of these cases actually go to trial without screaming national security if they truly wanted to determine the constitutionality beyond the shadow of a doubt. But we all know that that isn't going to happen.

you first equate regular public laws with the constitution and then you tell me that the only function of the supreme court is to decide the constitutionality of laws? and you want me to open a civics book?

what scalia is saying here is that it is the job of congress to determine these issues. if they want torture to be illegal they should outlaw it (and they have, but not with enough specificity imho).

where he gets this idea that guantanamo bay isn't subject to US laws i don't know, it's a pretty ridiculous idea in my opinion.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: AAman
I've met Scalia and listened to his canned speech (in law school)...he's pretty much a nobody intellectually, an average guy and an extreme right-wing activist who creates 'original' meanings of the Constitution out of the air.

People often dismiss speaking ability as a good indication of intelligence...but I think listening to someone talk is probably the best way to get a sense of what they are about. I'm not surprised that Scalia can't speak well, because he's a terrible writer as well...and those things together seem to indicate what I've suspected for a while, that he just flat out doesn't THINK very well.

And it's not a matter of policy, I can respect people who disagree with me, but he just doesn't have "it". I'm not entirely sure what "it" is, but we know it when we see it, and it's a quality that we really should see in someone filling such an important position. I guess the best description of "it" that I can come up with is the sense that the wheels is someone's head are always turning, that they are constantly re-evaluating what they think, trying to refine their positions and come to the best possible conclusion based on all the available information and opinions. You still might not agree with them, but at least you get the feeling that they came by their views honestly...and that if you could come up with a better argument, you could change their mind.

Like I said, this isn't partisan at all...there are people who have "it" all across the political spectrum, people who subscribe to many different points of view and who are likely to be found on every side of every issue. What's important isn't so much what they think about so much as it is THAT they think.

 

[DealMonkey]

Interesting perspective from Steven G. Bradbury, the acting head of the Justice Department?s Office of Legal Counsel:

Waterboarding Not Legal Now, Justice Dept. Lawyer Says

??There has been no determination by the Justice Department that the use of waterboarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under current law,'? he says in prepared remarks for a House hearing today that were obtained in advance by The Associated Press.

Obviously, if it's not legal, those who authorize its use should be brought up on charges, right?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Nah, he's not really that far off. The constitution doesn't specifically bar torture and I think he's right about that. The thing is that the constitution doesn't bar murder either and yet that's still illegal. We have passed other laws and entered other agreements that have made torture illegal... so the constitutional issue isn't really particularly important.

Agreed.


As far as the US courts not having any jurisdiction over Gitmo, well he's lost that fight several times now. That has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard... since the treaty we signed says that the US has complete jurisdiction over Gitmo. As was asked in oral arguments in one of those cases, if US law doesn't hold there, what law possibly could? Cuban? hahahaha.

Yeah, I thought court already ruled against him on that matter. But it required a torturous logic path to get there. Our agreement with Cuba regarding GITMO can be easily read both ways as to who has sovereignty there. The better question for the court was how does the USA have sovereignty over a foreign country (Cuba) on their land, the ownership of which is undisputed

Fern

 

[Harvey]

2-13-08

Judge Antonin Scalia -- Kieth Olbermann's Worst Person In The World! :shocked:

Note: May only work in IE.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Nah, he's not really that far off. The constitution doesn't specifically bar torture and I think he's right about that. The thing is that the constitution doesn't bar murder either and yet that's still illegal. We have passed other laws and entered other agreements that have made torture illegal... so the constitutional issue isn't really particularly important.

Agreed.


As far as the US courts not having any jurisdiction over Gitmo, well he's lost that fight several times now. That has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard... since the treaty we signed says that the US has complete jurisdiction over Gitmo. As was asked in oral arguments in one of those cases, if US law doesn't hold there, what law possibly could? Cuban? hahahaha.

Yeah, I thought court already ruled against him on that matter. But it required a torturous logic path to get there. Our agreement with Cuba regarding GITMO can be easily read both ways as to who has sovereignty there. The better question for the court was how does the USA have sovereignty over a foreign country (Cuba) on their land, the ownership of which is undisputed

Fern

Well, the agreement with Cuba over Gitmo does have the explicit statement in it that the United States exerts "complete jurisdiction and control" over it. That to me is fairly clear.

In addition from a practical perspective it makes sense. It is obvious that we are in total control of Guantanamo and that Cuban law does not apply there. (good thing too as i'm guessing just the grocery store and pizza hut there probably run afoul of several Cuban laws.) So in effect our choices are either no law applying there whatsoever, or our law as I see it.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Congress has been ordained as the law making branch. They made laws and entered into treaties against torture therefore making torture unconstitutional.

you've just claimed that all public laws of the united states are part of the constitution. did you really fail civics that badly?

Until they are decided to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS....they are considered constitutional. That is the only function of the SCOTUS. Maybe you should open your civics book a little more frequently.

Of course, the Bush administration could just let one of these cases actually go to trial without screaming national security if they truly wanted to determine the constitutionality beyond the shadow of a doubt. But we all know that that isn't going to happen.

you first equate regular public laws with the constitution and then you tell me that the only function of the supreme court is to decide the constitutionality of laws? and you want me to open a civics book?

what scalia is saying here is that it is the job of congress to determine these issues. if they want torture to be illegal they should outlaw it (and they have, but not with enough specificity imho).

I do not equate "regular public laws" with the constitution. I said that they are constitutional until otherwise decided upon. Big difference. And perhaps I should have said primary function instead of only:

The Supreme Court has two fundamental functions. On the one hand, it must interpret and expound all congressional enactments brought before it in proper cases; in this respect its role parallels that of the state courts of final resort in making the decisive interpretation of state law. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has power (superseding that of all other courts) to examine federal and state statutes and executive actions to determine whether they conform to the U.S. Constitution. When the court rules against the constitutionality of a statute or an executive action, its decision can be overcome only if the Constitution is amended or if the court later overrules itself or modifies its previous opinion. The decisions are not confined to the specific cases, but rather are intended to guide legislatures and executive authority; thereby they mold the development of law.

Oh, just an FYI....next time you want to use your cute little "EPIC FAIL" pic....you might want to change the file name to spell "Cat" correctly.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I do not equate "regular public laws" with the constitution. I said that they are constitutional until otherwise decided upon. Big difference. And perhaps I should have said primary function instead of only:

there is a difference between making something illegal by regular public law and that same thing being unconstitutional. you recognized no difference in your original argument:

They made laws and entered into treaties against torture therefore making torture unconstitutional.

so, yes, you did equate them. you're now claiming you didn't. and that's alright, you can do that, just own that you equated them at one point and we'll move on.

i would also say an unconstitutional law is always unconstitutional, even before the courts have gotten around to it. there is nothing in the constitution saying that the president couldn't veto a bill on the grounds that he believes it unconstitutional. or the senate could refuse to pass a bill on the grounds of unconstitutionality. which is a similar function to that which the house of lords plays in england, by my understanding of the english government. but i don't think either of those institutions has bothered with thinking about constitutionality much.

yes, i realize bills aren't laws.

Oh, just an FYI....next time you want to use your cute little "EPIC FAIL" pic....you might want to change the file name to spell "Cat" correctly.

not my pic, just one of those on bbzzdd. dunno who "gbp.atot" is.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I do not equate "regular public laws" with the constitution. I said that they are constitutional until otherwise decided upon. Big difference. And perhaps I should have said primary function instead of only:

there is a difference between making something illegal by regular public law and that same thing being unconstitutional. you recognized no difference in your original argument:

They made laws and entered into treaties against torture therefore making torture unconstitutional.

so, yes, you did equate them. you're now claiming you didn't. and that's alright, you can do that, just own that you equated them at one point and we'll move on.

i would also say an unconstitutional law is always unconstitutional, even before the courts have gotten around to it. there is nothing in the constitution saying that the president couldn't veto a bill on the grounds that he believes it unconstitutional. or the senate could refuse to pass a bill on the grounds of unconstitutionality. which is a similar function to that which the house of lords plays in england, by my understanding of the english government. but i don't think either of those institutions has bothered with thinking about constitutionality much.

yes, i realize bills aren't laws.

Oh, just an FYI....next time you want to use your cute little "EPIC FAIL" pic....you might want to change the file name to spell "Cat" correctly.

not my pic, just one of those on bbzzdd. dunno who "gbp.atot" is.

I will own that it was a miscommunication that was probably based upon my inability to phrase it in the manner that I intended it.

My original argument was and still is that a law is considered constitutionally sound and valid until or unless shot down by the SC.

Scalia's statements that torture isn't banned IN the constitution != torture is not banned BY the constitution.

Congress is constitutionally constructed to write laws that it feels are within the confines of the structure of the constitution. They have done that with regards to torture. Torture therefore is inherently banned by the constitution because it falls within the confines of the structure of it (it was created by the legislative branch, signed into law by the executive and has not been ruled against by the judicial). That is the original intent in my statements.