NationStates Jolt Archive

Is the constitution being destroyed/ignored? Just recently Conneticut passed a law that
gives police the right to seize firearms from the home of a person whom authorities believe may be considering a criminal act
And lets not forget about waterboarding
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


So, is the constitution being slowly ripped apart?

Of course not, those nice polititions would never do anything wrong, whats a little freedom for safety from teh ebil terrorists and criminals.:rolleyes:

Of course it is.

Of course it is.............................................................NOT!

Oho! I get this joke.. it's the one where you say something, and later go 'NOT!' just to be funny. Wait.. Where's the 'not'? Nevermind, I'll edit it in for you.

I don't think so; the general trend of the Federal government, which has the Constitution as its foundation, has been to expand its power. In fact, the purpose of its creation was to centralize authority, and it violated people's rights from the beginning with the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion and the Alien and Sedition Acts. George W.'s gulag and rape of habeas corpus is just another landmark in this sordid legacy.

Is the constitution being destroyed/ignored? Just recently Conneticut passed a law that

And lets not forget about waterboarding

So, is the constitution being slowly ripped apart?

Of course not, those nice polititions would never do anything wrong, whats a little freedom for safety from teh ebil terrorists and criminals.:rolleyes:

Are you referring to CGS (Connecticut General Statute) § 29-38c? If so, that law was passed in 1999 (and took effect Oct. 1, 1999).

*storms thread with redcoat horde*

you' know in Britain we don't mention a document dating from hundreds of years ago every 5 seconds and somehow justify are life with it...I guess this is why I usually celebrate when someone shouting out whatever of the first 5 amendments they choose to defend themselves with gets a good telling off :)

as for thread question: times change honestly I can't imagine a world where the police wouldn't stake guns off dangerous people but I certainly wouldn't want to live in it

can't imagine a world where the police wouldn't stake guns off dangerous people but I certainly wouldn't want to live in it

You're vicious, and how would that even work?

Um, the second example about waterboarding refers to prisoners, and since the people who are being considered enemy combatants, the constitution really doesn't apply to them. But thanks though.

You're vicious, and how would that even work?

well how do you intend to deal with vampires with guns?

Oho! I get this joke.. it's the one where you say something, and later go 'NOT!' just to be funny. Wait.. Where's the 'not'? Nevermind, I'll edit it in for you.

i c wat u did tehre.

The second amendment is really not well defined.
Does it apply to states or only the federal goverment ?
does its protection apply to individuals or only to state militias ?

these are both being addressed in "District of Columbia v. Heller" which is currently before the supreme court.

water boarding... well first the constitution only applies to citizens or people on US soil. I am personally against it but I am not going to freak out just because it happens else where. Apparently the three times it was use did save lives.

well how do you intend to deal with vampires with guns?

:D

Um, the second example about waterboarding refers to prisoners, and since the people who are being considered enemy combatants, the constitution really doesn't apply to them. But thanks though.

However, Article VI states:

"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"

The US signed the Geneva Convention, did we not?

However, Article VI states:

"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"

The US signed the Geneva Convention, did we not?

I know I'm a bit behind on the times here, but I thought that by calling them terrorists, or enemy combatants, etc. gets around the Geneva convention, as the convention only applies to enemy soldiers who are captured in a recognized uniform. These people were not, and I don't think that the Geneva Convention applies to them.

I know I'm a bit behind on the times here, but I thought that by calling them terrorists, or enemy combatants, etc. gets around the Geneva convention, as the convention only applies to enemy soldiers who are captured in a recognized uniform. These people were not, and I don't think that the Geneva Convention applies to them.

So, by using different terminology you get away with torture? Cool. Since, they're not uniformed, then they are civilians, no?

the US constitution is, I fear, far more complicated than a basic discussion would address

So, by using different terminology you get away with torture? Cool. Since, they're not uniformed, then they are civilians, no?

only the forth convention applies non military(uniformed personnel).
And thats pretty clear the second they take up arms that this convention does not apply to them.

So, by using different terminology you get away with torture? Cool. Since, they're not uniformed, then they are civilians, no?

The actions of the enemy force the US to use the methods they use, it's not like the generals get up in the morning and think of a way to chip away at the Geneva convention, they are faced with a reality which they are trying to deal with in real-time. I'm not saying that they have made great decisions, but I'm not going to question their decisions without knowing the facts either (and fyi, unless you're in the intelligence community, you don't know the facts).

And the moment that they decided to attack the US, they became enemy combatants, and when they decided to attack in the methods that they do, with IEDs and suicide bombs, they became terrorists, and truth be told I don't really care what happens to them.

Is the constitution being destroyed/ignored? Just recently Conneticut passed a law that

And lets not forget about waterboarding

So, is the constitution being slowly ripped apart?


Slowly?

Suffice it to say that it is my considered opinion that large parts of the US constitution have been undermined, and ocassionally outright ignored, since it's inception. Furthermore, it undermined the so called "Spirit of '76", as set forth in the DoI and elsewhere.

the US constitution is, I fear, far more complicated than a basic discussion would address

Indeed so.

I know I'm a bit behind on the times here, but I thought that by calling them terrorists, or enemy combatants, etc. gets around the Geneva convention, as the convention only applies to enemy soldiers who are captured in a recognized uniform. These people were not, and I don't think that the Geneva Convention applies to them.

only the forth convention applies non military(uniformed personnel).
And thats pretty clear the second they take up arms that this convention does not apply to them.

Incorrect, both of you.

As I pointed out in last week's thread:

To clear things up even further:You've chosen the wrong Protocol to apply. If they are not POWs, they are civilians, and entitled to the protections of the 4th Geneva Protocol, not the 3rd.

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva07.htm)

Treat them as POWs or treatr them as detainees, either way, the treatment dished out at Gitmo and elsewhere.

Note also that the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Degrading or Inhuman Treatment (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.htm) covers the Bush administration's war crimes.

(IMPORTANT NOTE: I do not apply international treatys and laws of war exclusively to one facton or another. Yes, terrorist war criminals should be tried and punished. As should US war criminals. Torture of person captured in war time, whether military or not, is a crime under many levels of law, and the Bush administration has, to all appreances, approved it. Thus, they should be appropriately tried for said crimes.)

Article 5 of Protocol IV states:

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva07.htm

In other words, once detained, terrorist may be put on trial, but must be afforded the same rights as a civilian.



Note also that the US is a signatory to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html).

i c wat u did tehre.

I can haz spelling no?

Is the constitution being destroyed/ignored? Just recently Conneticut passed a law that

And lets not forget about waterboarding

So, is the constitution being slowly ripped apart?

Of course not, those nice polititions would never do anything wrong, whats a little freedom for safety from teh ebil terrorists and criminals.:rolleyes:

That Connecticut law won't stand up to judicial scrutiny. It's not too much of a worry.

As for waterboarding, the "cruel and unusual punishments" clause of the eighth amendment deals with retribution for criminal acts. In my view, it says nothing about the actions that the government should take towards foreigners in the interest of national security.

Waterboarding is not cruel or unsual nor is it torture. And yes I would gladly be waterboarded than be beaten, shocked, cut, impaled or a number of other things that are actually torture. As for the Conn. thing, yes absolutely that goes against the consitution.

I can haz spelling no?

Sorry, I wanted to preserve the original integrity of the counter.

Sorry, I wanted to preserve the original integrity of the counter.

Touche.

Waterboarding is not cruel or unsual nor is it torture.

False.

And yes I would gladly be waterboarded than be beaten, shocked, cut, impaled or a number of other things that are actually torture. As for the Conn. thing, yes absolutely that goes against the consitution.

Simulated drowning =/= torture? Rather than engage in an epic game of touche-and-riposte debate until we come to the end of our words I'm just going to cut to the chase and ask the question:

"What exactly constitutes torture in your opinion?"

False.



Simulated drowning =/= torture? Rather than engage in an epic game of touche-and-riposte debate until we come to the end of our words I'm just going to cut to the chase and ask the question:

"What exactly constitutes torture in your opinion?"

It's not torture. You're perfectly fine 10 to 15 minutes after its over. Can you say that about someone who has been severly beaten, starved, been raped, burned, had objects inserted under nails or in eyes, etc. I could gone on but you get my point.

False.



Simulated drowning =/= torture? Rather than engage in an epic game of touche-and-riposte debate until we come to the end of our words I'm just going to cut to the chase and ask the question:

"What exactly constitutes torture in your opinion?"

It's not torture. You're perfectly fine 10 to 15 minutes after its over. Can you say that about someone who has been severly beaten, starved, been raped, burned, had objects inserted under nails or in eyes, etc. I could gone on but you get my point.

The day after every (then existing) state signed off on the Constitution, there began a systematic move to interpret it in ways that were beneficial to particular interest groups. This movement was no more or less subtle than today's attempts to alter the meaning of the Constitution. Like the Bible, it is constantly being interpreted, ignored, modified, undercut, gutted, and otherwise abused. Things haven't changed much in the 200 and some odd years since it was written, it's just that we hear about the abuses much sooner now.

It's not torture. You're perfectly fine 10 to 15 minutes after its over. Can you say that about someone who has been severly beaten, starved, been raped, burned, had objects inserted under nails or in eyes, etc. I could gone on but you get my point.

You can be perfectly fine after being raped assuming we're ignoring all psychological effects for the purpose of your 'point'

if i'm not mistaken, isenhour (and maybe pardon me mr ford and bush I) was the only republican elected to the presidency in my life time (he let holy joe mccarthy do it for him), who didn't do everything they could to essentially betray their oath of office. nixxon, raygun, and bush II have all engauged in a proccess of premeditatedly shredding it and flushing it down the crapper. a proccess i see as being in no way distinguishable from high treason.

=^^=
.../\...

Waterboarding is not cruel or unsual nor is it torture. And yes I would gladly be waterboarded than be beaten, shocked, cut, impaled or a number of other things that are actually torture. As for the Conn. thing, yes absolutely that goes against the consitution.

According to the United States, it's torture. They declared it so during World War 2.

Waterboarding is not cruel or unsual nor is it torture. And yes I would gladly be waterboarded than be beaten, shocked, cut, impaled or a number of other things that are actually torture.

Then you do not understand what's being discussed.

People who do disagree with you vehemently.

As a former Master Instructor and Chief of Training at the US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego, California I know the waterboard personally and intimately. SERE staff were required undergo the waterboard at its fullest. I was no exception. I have personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people. It has been reported that both the Army and Navy SERE school’s interrogation manuals were used to form the interrogation techniques used by the US army and the CIA for its terror suspects. What was not mentioned in most articles was that SERE was designed to show how an evil totalitarian, enemy would use torture at the slightest whim. If this is the case, then waterboarding is unquestionably being used as torture technique.
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/print/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/

It's not torture. You're perfectly fine 10 to 15 minutes after its over. Can you say that about someone who has been severly beaten, starved, been raped, burned, had objects inserted under nails or in eyes, etc. I could gone on but you get my point.

I present you with the testimony of a medical doctor.

Water-boarding or mock drowning, where a prisoner is bound to an inclined board and water is poured over their face, inducing a terrifying fear of drowning clearly can result in immediate and long-term health consequences. As the prisoner gags and chokes, the terror of imminent death is pervasive, with all of the physiologic and psychological responses expected, including an intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia, rapid heart beat and gasping for breath. There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water. Long term effects include panic attacks, depression and PTSD. I remind you of the patient I described earlier who would panic and gasp for breath whenever it rained even years after his abuse.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/070925/akeller.pdf#page=6

Ermmm... death by drowning would seem to be rather contraindicative of being fine....

According to the United States, it's torture. They declared it so during World War 2.

And in other counterinsurgencies, the US military court martialed soldiers for it.

The U.S. Army has long known. During the U.S.- Philippine War (1899-1902), five Army officers, Major Edwin Glenn, Captain Cornelius Brownell, 1st Lieutenants Julien Gaujot, Edwin Hickman, and Preston Brown, were convicted by courts-martial for employing the “water cure” in interrogating Philippine prisoners. Although Brownell’s victim, a local priest, died while being subjected to the water cure, Brownell’s conviction was set aside on jurisdictional grounds. Army juries rejected the defense of “military necessity,” recognizing the water cure for what it is. The Army’s Judge Advocate General, the reviewing officer of Glenn’s case, derisively noted, “the resort to torture is attempted to be justified…as the habitual method of obtaining information from individual insurgents.” In the Vietnam War, Army Staff Sergeant David Carmon was disciplined after he was pictured torturing a prisoner with the water cure.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2007/10/is-waterboarding-torture-judge-mukasey.php

I'll leave you all with this fine article, well documented, on the history of waterboarding in the US courts: Drop by Drop: Forgetting The History of Water Torture in U.S. Courts (http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/wallach_drop_by_drop_draft_20061016.pdf).

yes the constitution is being ignored.

dont relax when obama wins the election in november. the democrats warp the constitution too, just in a different way. we have to be on guard at all times.

yes the constitution is being ignored.

dont relax when obama wins the election in november. the democrats warp the constitution too, just in a different way. we have to be on guard at all times.

Indeed so.

yes the constitution is being ignored.

dont relax when obama wins the election in november. the democrats warp the constitution too, just in a different way. we have to be on guard at all times.

That's why I should be elected President For Life
I won't ignore the constitution or try to warp it.
I'll just abolish it entirely.
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/Sinister.gif

The constitution was intended to be a temporary document. If the founders had planned for it to remain relatively unchanged for this long, they would not have mad provisions about amendments and further constitutional conventions. Hell, the second amendment was Jefferson idea to allow the people to rebel against the government when they thought it had screwed up and need redoing.

yes the constitution is being ignored.

dont relax when obama wins the election in november. the democrats warp the constitution too, just in a different way. we have to be on guard at all times.

Meh. He can't be any worse than Bush.

But yeah, the Constitution is basically treated like a suggestion for the most part these days. Why, just the other day, I got this letter from the U.S. Army saying that PFC Joe Blow is going to be bunking in my spare bedroom for the next six months.

Meh. He can't be any worse than Bush.

But yeah, the Constitution is basically treated like a suggestion for the most part these days. Why, just the other day, I got this letter from the U.S. Army saying that PFC Joe Blow is going to be bunking in my spare bedroom for the next six months.

Let's see... There's lots more....

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

Yep, that's been going on for a while...

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

Err... yes?

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

Yep.

There's a whole long list... (I'm going to be lazy for a change and not go find P.J. O'Rourke's entertaining listing of the violations the Feds have made of the DoI...)

Um, the second example about waterboarding refers to prisoners, and since the people who are being considered enemy combatants, the constitution really doesn't apply to them. But thanks though.

Rasaul V Bush disagrees.


God I wish people knew what they were talking about before they said stupid ass shit.

Rasaul V Bush disagrees.


God I wish people knew what they were talking about before they said stupid ass shit.

But then they wouldn't say it, depriving us of the fun of pouncing on them for it.

Any restriction on firearms is violating the constitution. You can't license a right. I'm not saying guns shouldn't be licensed, but if they want to do that the 2nd amendment should be altered.

Most people aren't aware of their right to privacy. If the cops ask for permission to randomly search their car, they think they're supposed to say yes. There's no reason to say yes. When the cops pull you over and ask if you know why they stopped you, there's no reason to answer that question truthfully. People have a misplaced sense of guilt about not wanting to make their lives public. I'm not sure if wiretapping is a bad thing, because it has stopped terrorism, but it seems unconstitutional.

Any restriction on firearms is violating the constitution. You can't license a right. I'm not saying guns shouldn't be licensed, but if they want to do that the 2nd amendment should be altered.

And where does it say that?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And where does it say that?Well that's the problem. It's a bit ambiguous, and it depends on what your definition of words like "well regulated" and "militia" are. That's why the supreme court is trying to decide once and for all what the 2nd amendment really means. Personally I believe the people who wrote that amendment wanted everyone to have the right to own a gun, no matter what. I don't think that kind of freedom is a good idea, but it's still unconstitutional to restrict firearms.

Meh. He can't be any worse than Bush.


oh he'll be far better than george bush. thats why its important not to give him a pass just because hes not an asshole. he'll have his own way of grabbing power.


But yeah, the Constitution is basically treated like a suggestion for the most part these days. Why, just the other day, I got this letter from the U.S. Army saying that PFC Joe Blow is going to be bunking in my spare bedroom for the next six months.

HEY buddy, we''re at war and the president can do whatever he wants with troops. his word IS law, just ask any of his lawyers.

*storms thread with redcoat horde*

you' know in Britain we don't mention a document dating from hundreds of years ago every 5 seconds and somehow justify are life with it...I guess this is why I usually celebrate when someone shouting out whatever of the first 5 amendments they choose to defend themselves with gets a good telling off :)

as for thread question: times change honestly I can't imagine a world where the police wouldn't stake guns off dangerous people but I certainly wouldn't want to live in it

You have the Magna Carta, the 1869 Bill of Rights, and the Parliament Acts.

The biggest issues (IMO) are these: The Ninth Amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Tenth Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." These are the areas where the government has clearly overstepped its bounds.

The Constitution is a living document, but only in that a specific process must be followed to change it. This is to prevent abuse from hastily passed legislation such as the PATRIOT Act. Remember, fear the government like you fear fire. It has its uses, but it can easily get out of control and consume everything you have.

Is the constitution being destroyed/ignored? Just recently Conneticut passed a law that


That is quite clearly unconstitutional. After all, according to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, it is the express power of the federal legislature to regulate the armament of the militia. As such, if the right of the militia in Amendment II applies to individuals, then the State Legislature of Connecticut is clearly overstepping its Constitutional boundaries to infringe on the right of the Federal Govt. to regulate firearm usage.

Relevant part of the text:


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;

Offhand, I do wonder how many NRA members actually bother to read that part of the Constitution. . .

You have the Magna Carta, the 1869 Bill of Rights, and the Parliament Acts.
.
But they don't get referenced much. And all come under the basic precept of British Law, that no law overrides another, and what one set of MPs decides, another set can get reversed. Almost all of Magna Carta has been repealed.

The 1689 bill was important historically certainly, but no-one really knows about it now.

The last parliament act was less than 50 years ago.

The 'unwritten' constitution of Britain's main strength is it's fully living nature. Majority of the day decides how we should live.

Option #3 cracks me up. I find it very funny that a self-proclaimed libertarian believes that our rights come from a piece of paper.

I'm pretty sure the U.S. founding fathers intended that the constitution be replaced 'every generation'. (Mabye they should have put that in there).

I think it'd be hard to support any claim that the U.S. totally abides by its consitution, not just because its citizens can be subject ot arbitrary arrest, and be held without trial for an indeterminate amount of time while their assets are frozen are confinscated; not just because there are laws preventing the marketing of largley innocuous drugs (see marijuana strain); but simply because the constion isn't self-consistent. I.e. Provisions still exist to rpevent people from stealing one another's slaves,through this is overridden by the 13th....

So, by using different terminology you get away with torture? Cool. Since, they're not uniformed, then they are civilians, no?

Nope, criminals.

I'm pretty sure the U.S. founding fathers intended that the constitution be replaced 'every generation'. (Mabye they should have put that in there).
And what exactly do you base this on.
Nope, criminals.
And non-military criminals would be civilians.

Um, the second example about waterboarding refers to prisoners, and since the people who are being considered enemy combatants, the constitution really doesn't apply to them. But thanks though.

How about I redefine you as "not human" and thereby, killing you would not be murder? I mean, if we can redefine people however we want to avoid legal obstructions, there shouldn't be any reason why I can't redefine select people as "not human" and thus, legal to kill.

'Rights' are simply the political extension for the will of the ruling class.

It's not torture. You're perfectly fine 10 to 15 minutes after its over. Can you say that about someone who has been severly beaten, starved, been raped, burned, had objects inserted under nails or in eyes, etc. I could gone on but you get my point.

I'm sure the American POWs under Japan during WWII would disagree with you. Something about personal experience...

And as has been mentioned, you can be perfectly fine, physically at least, after being raped. Are you going to argue that it isn't a traumatic thing then? Just like what torture is specifically meant to do? Inflict massive amounts of trauma?

The constitution, and especially the bill of rights, is the foundation that this nation is built upon. We are meant to be a nation of laws, of fairness, of equality, one without arbitrary rulers and laws. The constitution does not give us our rights, it prevents the government from screwing with them.

the constitution is not outdated, because the greater part of it is timeless. When does freedom of speech, or religion, or against unreasonable search or self incrimination or torture become outmoded?

As for waterboarding being torture, the justice department assigned a guy to determine, legally, whether or not it was torture. So he decided that the best way to determine that was to go to some military experts and be waterboarded. And it was his determination that waterboarding was, unequivocally, torture.

He was fired.

Nope, criminals.

Who then are still protected under the US constitution.

Or they are non-military criminals, which makes them civies. And the Geneva Convetion doesnt say that its rules only apply to non-criminals.

Epic fail.


But our opinions dont matter, because the issue has already been decided in favor of terrorists being protected by people with much more power and knowledge then we have, SCOTUS in Rasaul V Bush.

The last 20 years +, we've seen a slow loss of rights. Smart folks,since we'd all be throwing fits if the did it all at once.

Well...I'm not entirely sure this will apply to the conversation but heres a wake up call. Most democratic countries standing more than a decade, already have massive holes in their constitutions. For example, in Canada, the constitution basically not longer exists. Whenever anyone pokes fun at ANYTHING, if s/he were to say: I have the right to free speech and opinion, you'll most likely be barked at mindlessly.

So, as for the U.S, since you've been around 80 years longer than us...Good job!

Absolutely. Didn't someone from NSG recently get hit by that law?

Absolutely. Didn't someone from NSG recently get hit by that law?

No

Absolutely. Didn't someone from NSG recently get hit by that law?

April Fools!

Nope, criminals.

False dichotomy. Military/civilian does not equate to criminal/non-criminal.

Who then are still protected under the US constitution.

Or they are non-military criminals, which makes them civies. And the Geneva Convetion doesnt say that its rules only apply to non-criminals.

Indeed. The courts have in fact stated that there is not status outside the conventions. Note the use by International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol8/No1/sr1-01.html) (to which the US was a party) of the ICRC's commentary on Convention (IV) (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument).

Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. ' There is no ' intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.

Absolutely. Didn't someone from NSG recently get hit by that law?

It was my April Fools day joke this year. It didn't actually happen. :D

if it were merely being ignored i could live with that. if the powers that be honestly came out and admitted openly, and made no pretense to the contrary, "sorry folks, the idea of a constitution was a cool idea and all, but we're an imperial dictatorial monarchy now", you know, openly, honestly said that, in plain simple words, instead of pussyfooting around and making a bunch of lying pretentions and keeping up the facade of trying to convence people of them, well you know, that would be one thing.

but what's being done. what annoys the hell out of me, is this deliberate premeditated treason against it and against everything it might ever have been intended to stand for, and all in the name of defending and protecting it.

and all this pretense of supposed morality and so called conservatism, that never conserved a damd thing, never intended to and never will.

=^^=
.../\...

Is the constitution being destroyed/ignored?

Overall, the Constitution controls our government and is generally respected and followed. Are there violations that nonetheless occur? Yes, and we must be ever vigilant.

Just recently Conneticut passed a law that

That isn't a fair characterization of the law in question. It allows Connecticut authorities to temporarily seize firearms that are in the control of someone who posses an IMMINENT threat to himself or others -- subject to a hearing within 14 days as to whether the firearms will be returned.

That Connecticut law won't stand up to judicial scrutiny. It's not too much of a worry.

The law has existed for about 9 years and HAS survived judicial scrutiny. I'm not sure why you think it wouldn't.

Waterboarding is not cruel or unsual nor is it torture. And yes I would gladly be waterboarded than be beaten, shocked, cut, impaled or a number of other things that are actually torture. As for the Conn. thing, yes absolutely that goes against the consitution.

You don't seem to understand the definition of torture or the effects -- especially psychological -- that torture can have.

The day after every (then existing) state signed off on the Constitution, there began a systematic move to interpret it in ways that were beneficial to particular interest groups. This movement was no more or less subtle than today's attempts to alter the meaning of the Constitution. Like the Bible, it is constantly being interpreted, ignored, modified, undercut, gutted, and otherwise abused. Things haven't changed much in the 200 and some odd years since it was written, it's just that we hear about the abuses much sooner now.

But this was anticipated and planned for by the Founders. See, e.g., Federalist Papers #10 (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_10.html) and #51 (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_51.html).

From #51, I offer the following quote:
But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.


The constitution was intended to be a temporary document. If the founders had planned for it to remain relatively unchanged for this long, they would not have mad provisions about amendments and further constitutional conventions.

Your conclusion is wrong, and based on an irrational inference. There is nothing about the fact that the Constitution can change over time that suggests it is merely a temporary document -- to the contrary, why build in an arduous process for making alterations to something that is only meant to be temporary.

But yeah, the Constitution is basically treated like a suggestion for the most part these days. Why, just the other day, I got this letter from the U.S. Army saying that PFC Joe Blow is going to be bunking in my spare bedroom for the next six months.

:D:p:D

Any restriction on firearms is violating the constitution. You can't license a right. I'm not saying guns shouldn't be licensed, but if they want to do that the 2nd amendment should be altered.

Even assuming for the sake of argument that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, applies to the states, etc, such a right would not be an about absolute one. Other rights protected by the Bill of Rights are not considered to be absolute -- one cannot defame or cry "fire" in a crowded theatre, for example -- why would the right to firearms be different?

Most people aren't aware of their right to privacy. If the cops ask for permission to randomly search their car, they think they're supposed to say yes. There's no reason to say yes. When the cops pull you over and ask if you know why they stopped you, there's no reason to answer that question truthfully. People have a misplaced sense of guilt about not wanting to make their lives public. I'm not sure if wiretapping is a bad thing, because it has stopped terrorism, but it seems unconstitutional.

You are sending mixed messages and I'm not sure what your point is.

Yes, people often consent to intrusions that they have a right to resist, but having a right doesn't mean one has to exercise it.

Wiretapping without warrants is unconsitutional, as are provisions that seek to paper over the requirements for a proper warrant.

Well that's the problem. It's a bit ambiguous, and it depends on what your definition of words like "well regulated" and "militia" are. That's why the supreme court is trying to decide once and for all what the 2nd amendment really means. Personally I believe the people who wrote that amendment wanted everyone to have the right to own a gun, no matter what. I don't think that kind of freedom is a good idea, but it's still unconstitutional to restrict firearms.

As I said above, the right to own a gun is different that "the right to own a gun, no matter what." The latter is neither reasonable nor required by the Constitution.

The biggest issues (IMO) are these: The Ninth Amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Tenth Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." These are the areas where the government has clearly overstepped its bounds.

I'm not sure you can make a substantive argument based on the Ninth and Tenth Amendments that the government has clearly overstepped its bounds. Both Amendments, athough safe-guarded by the Supreme Court, are a bit vague.

That is quite clearly unconstitutional. After all, according to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, it is the express power of the federal legislature to regulate the armament of the militia. As such, if the right of the militia in Amendment II applies to individuals, then the State Legislature of Connecticut is clearly overstepping its Constitutional boundaries to infringe on the right of the Federal Govt. to regulate firearm usage.

That has to be one of the stranger gun rights arguments I have ever come across. Needless to say, I don't think it has much merit.

The last 20 years +, we've seen a slow loss of rights. Smart folks,since we'd all be throwing fits if the did it all at once.

This reminds of the legendary frog that is slowly brought to boil and will tolerate this situation until it is too late -- unlike the frog that will avoid boiling water.

Nonetheless, I think we've seen a mixed record over the last 20+ years. In some areas, we have gained ground. In others we have rights being lost.

That has to be one of the stranger gun rights arguments I have ever come across. Needless to say, I don't think it has much merit.


That's because it's not a gun-rights argument except in the loosest sense of the term. 2nd Amendment-devotees continually cite, in contrast to established Supreme Court interpretation, that the right of the militia to bear arms is an individual right. By citing this precedent, The Conservative Morality (TCM) seemed to be siding with such devotees. My point was merely that the Second Amendment is not the only place in the Constitution where militias are mentioned, and if militia in the Second Amendment applies to individuals, then it applies to individuals in Article I, Section 8, where it is the express power of the federal legislature to regulate their armament.

In shorter terms: if TCM magically managed to make the 2nd Amendment mean what he thinks it means, he'd actually be strengthening the power of the federal government to regulate his firearm usage. I was going for the cosmic irony angle.

Who then are still protected under the US constitution.

Or they are non-military criminals, which makes them civies. And the Geneva Convetion doesnt say that its rules only apply to non-criminals.

Epic fail.


But our opinions dont matter, because the issue has already been decided in favor of terrorists being protected by people with much more power and knowledge then we have, SCOTUS in Rasaul V Bush.

If they're not citizens of the USA, the Constitution/Bill of Rights don't apply to them.

2nd Amendment-devotees continually cite, in contrast to established Supreme Court interpretation, that the right of the militia to bear arms is an individual right.


Do you mean "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."?

If they're not citizens of the USA, the Constitution/Bill of Rights don't apply to them.

:rolleyes:

Do you mean "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."?

That and what goes around it: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

There's also this:

" 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; "

And this:

"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states,"

Again, my point has no bearing on whether the Second Amendment is an individual right or a collective right of the militia. All I'm saying is that if "militia" is a term that confers an individual right to bear arms, then it is the right of the federal government to regulate said arming by the explicit, lettered, words of the Constitution. I'm not sure what's so hard about this.