Scalia: Torture’s ‘bad,’ but not ‘unconstitutional’
By on Mar 5th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Scalia: Torture’s ‘bad,’ but not ‘unconstitutional’
Last month, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia sparked controversy when he defended torture on BBC radio, claiming that it’s “absurd” to say that the government “can’t stick something under the fingernails” of a suspect to get information. In Missouri last night, Scalia again said torture should be allowed. “It’s a bad thing to do,” said Scalia. “But not everything that is bad is unconstitutional.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
But everything that is unconstitutional IS BAD. jackass.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:41 pmWould Jesus torture, Scalia?
Then by GOD get out of his religion.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:42 pmlets just have no quarter in battlefields as well then
rape? well thats just a spoil of war
sodomising the enemies children, no harm done there
ALREADY DONE BY US TROOPS ALL OF THE ABOVE
George Bush is a disgusting president
March 5th, 2008 at 5:43 pmit’s going to suck (for him) when we need some info about Bush that he’s not going to give up.
now………where did i put those bamboo sticks again?
March 5th, 2008 at 5:43 pmIs there any mechanism for removing Supreme Court Justices
if they get Alzheimers Disease, stop making sense,are incoherent or in some way mentally incompetent?
What if one of them goes completely Britney Spears or GW Bush style nuts?
March 5th, 2008 at 5:44 pmWhat about medications affecting their performance? Alcoholism?
Are we just stuck with them no matter what happens?
It doesn’t even matter if it isn’t “unconstitutional”. What matters is that it is against the law! It is a crime.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:46 pmScalia needs a primer on some of the international treaties we’re signatories on, I’d say. For starters, he can try reading the Geneva Conventions on Torture and move on from there. There are at least 4 treaties/conventions which we’be subscribed to which we’ve broken. What crime is necessary to have a sitting SC judge unseated for life?
March 5th, 2008 at 5:48 pmScalia is disgusting.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:48 pmExcuse me your highness…it’s assault pure and simple. It’s in the penal code of every state. WTF did you get your law education. Somebody gets touched, a hand laid to them, taken against their will, held etc., it’s assault and it may be unlawful imprisonment and/or kidnapping. I can’t believe this cabbage head made it to the supreme court. This is what we all have to look forward to as the end product of Justice in America…this is the guy, fair and impartial, whose gonna say that just because jo smo got slapped around, held down and watered and taken against his will, no crime has been committed. Or, Mr. Justice, are playing the word game like the Bush bunch do, what d’ya mean by constitutional? Not on your life. Forget constitutionality, it’s a GD crime you slug.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:48 pmIs there any mechanism for removing Supreme Court Justices
if they get Alzheimers Disease, stop making sense,are incoherent or in some way mentally incompetent?
Justices serve lifetime appointments. Under the Constitution they can be removed from the Court only by first being impeached (accused) by a majority vote of the U.S. House of Representatives and then convicted by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. There is no precise standard for determining whether a justice has committed an impeachable offense, though the consensus is that removal should be for criminal or ethical lapses, not for partisan political reasons. No justice has ever been removed through this process, and only one justice of the Supreme Court has ever been impeached. In 1805 Justice Samuel Chase was impeached in the House by his political enemies, but the Senate failed to convict when it became apparent that Chase’s opponents were after him not because he had committed any wrongdoing but because they disagreed with his decisions. The possibility of impeachment may have been a factor in the resignation of Justice Abe Fortas, who left the Court in 1969 after allegations surfaced that he had accepted a questionable fee from a private foundation. Some conservative groups rallied for the removal of Chief Justice Earl Warren in the 1960s, but their efforts failed.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574302_2/supreme_court_of_the_united_states.html
March 5th, 2008 at 5:49 pmI think he’s purposely using Orwellian tactics here in using the term unconstitutional. What he should have said, but didn’t of course, is that it’s totally against the laws of this country and the treaties we’ve signed. These con men are quite adept at their art of deception. Now you can’t even trust the SCOTUS of this country.
Out with them all.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:49 pmUnless the Constitution says that Congress shall not abridge the right of the Executive to commit torture, then laws banning torture are Constitutional.
Torture is against the law.
Nino “meatballs and cheese” Torquemada.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:49 pmRE: torture; “But not everything that is bad is unconstitutional.â€
Wtf kind of statement is that?
March 5th, 2008 at 5:49 pmWhat a jackass!
I’m really uncertain how to take Scalia’s latest diatribe. On the one hand, it is disgusting and unprofessional for a Supreme Court Justice to be interjecting himself into any political or policy debate (talk about an activist judge!). On the other hand, now Scalia will have to (or, by God, should!) recuse himself if and when a torture case comes before the SCOTUS, taking away one immoral, bigoted, “constructionist” member of the SCOTUS.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:50 pmI’d say that implying that he believes that torture is not against the law is what would be considered an ‘IMPEACHABLE STATEMENT’.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:50 pm#14 So this may have been Skaglia’s way of removing himself when the shit hits the fan.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:51 pmHow did these bigoted fools get in there in the first place? It’s time to think about impeaching them all.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:51 pmScalia = hired goon, no more, no less.
a stereotype-confirming insult to every living Italian-American.
vaffancula, mr. scalia, and the horse you rode in on.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:52 pmThey can also retire. I think we need to send some “Special Agents” over to the USSC to ask a few of these fellows to clear out. You can retire, or take the other alternative – it’s up to you. You’ve got three minutes.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:53 pm“In the good old days,” justices “had to distort the Constitution the good, old-fashioned, honest way – they lied about it!” Scalia said to laughter.
ha. ha. ha.
ha. … you really gotta read that article…
what year is it?
- Hussein Katy
March 5th, 2008 at 5:53 pmScalia should be the first Justice on the impeachment list. He hasn’t any concept of the rule of law. He’s an ends justify the means type who’s a threat to our Constitution.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:57 pmWTF…….is this yahooooo talkin about? torture is torture is torture and torture is unconstitutional jerkoff. and this peckerwood is still serving the bench. this is exactly the reason the american folks need to start making some serious noise in the news by making yourselves present at media events.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:00 pmYou have got to be kidding me…this POS needs to be removed pronto.
Scalia must be Frank M…both obvious scum.
Bush/Cheney/Scalia
March 5th, 2008 at 6:04 pmHague Trials ‘09
you’ve been told now, williamf and qualar… so there…
*** raspberry***
- Hussein Katy
March 5th, 2008 at 6:05 pmExcuse you. Scalia didn’t say torture isn’t against the law he said that it isn’t addressed by the constitution. You guys need to take your blinders off.
Comment by Tracy2 — March 5, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Excuse you. Scalia didn’t say torture isn’t against the law he said that it isn’t addressed by the constitution. You guys need to take your blinders off.
Comment by Tracy2 — March 5, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
T2 shows off her ignorance once again. the Constitution very clearly outlines states that, as signatories of treaties that forbid torture, torture is completely unconstitutional. T2 is an unAmerican dipshit, as is Scalia, and both should be exiled.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:07 pm>Scalia didn’t say torture isn’t against the law he said
> that it isn’t addressed by the constitution.
And he’d be completely wrong….something about “cruel + unusual” comes to mind…I’m sure theres other parts, I dont have my pocket constituion with me.
Scalia is a literalist/strict constructionist when it serves his purposes only.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:08 pmBy his warped logic, freedom of “speech” wouldnt cover the written word, because, well, the literal definition of speech is something that is spoken..
How in the name of christ did this jackass every get to be a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE?!?!?!? and is there any way to get rid of him.
He’s a stain on our nation.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:08 pmTorture is on its face cruel and unusual.
Scalia is a bloated and raving lunatic and should be impeached along with conservative affirmative action hire Silent Clarence Thomas.
-GSD
March 5th, 2008 at 6:12 pm22 – Tracy – we “need to take our blinders off”…?
And what, pray, does THAT mean? That we should all wise up and enthusiastically embrace torture…?
If so, you’re an idiot – and a dangerous one, at that.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:12 pmComment by bilbobaggins — March 5, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
In other words, we’re screwed.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:13 pm#22 In a way it can be argued it is part of the Constitution. Article VI states in part “:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Since the United States has treaties banning torture, which are the supreme law of the land as stated by the Constitution, makes it illegal.
In any case, for a Supreme Court justice to take the stance Scalia is taking here is reprehensible at the very least.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:15 pmWell Scalia will think differently if his son Matt was waterboarded. Notice how some people see no problem with torture until it’s done to them or their family. At lease Scalia is a good Dad as he’s kids commit crimes and he gets them dismissed.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:17 pmTracy #24
The Bill of “Rights†are a list of directives that protect the people from what the government may not infringe upon. If you were to read the Constitution is basically a laundry list (to pun intended) of things that the government is not allowed to do to the people.
That would be the way to look at it if the Ninth Amendment didn’t specifically say that it’s exactly the wrong way to interpret the Constitution:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Scalia is an embarrassment.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:18 pmSince Shrub has been in office we’ve all been victims of “cruel and unusual punishment”.
Wood Hussein Guy
March 5th, 2008 at 6:18 pmI had to register to comment, and now it’s been said.
Suffice it to say that if “cruel and unusual punishment” means ANYTHING, it means torture. Our Founding Fathers were not idiots like our president. They knew exactly what they were doing, and eveyone knows what this means.
If torture isn’t “cruel and unusual punishment,” what possibly could be? The very question is beyond belief.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:19 pmIn Missouri last night, Scalia again said torture should be allowed. “It’s a bad thing to do,†said Scalia. “But not everything that is bad is unconstitutional.â€
Yeah
Unfortunately for you , you stupid fat bastood , torture is one of those “bad” things that is unconstitutional ……………
March 5th, 2008 at 6:20 pmBut not everything that is bad…
Torture is no formula for ensuring that America remains either good or great. America is fast becoming everything that is bad under an Administration playing fast and lose with the Constitution.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:21 pmHis hunting trip with Cheney while a suit against Cheney was being reviewed by the Supreme Court is grounds for impeachment. He didn’t recuse himself after this conflict was brought to his attention. He replied with an obscene Italian gesture. Real class.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:23 pm>If torture isn’t “cruel and unusual punishment,â€
>what possibly could be?
forcing people like Scalia to try and explain away the consistencies in thier arguments..
March 5th, 2008 at 6:23 pmTorture is bad, and antonin scaly-a is worse. Much.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:24 pmhttp://www.iht.com/articles/2004/06/19/edglennon_ed3_.php
This is a rather good article of comparison arguments.
Sanctioning torture : How U.S. lawyers read the Constitution
By Michael J. GlennonPublished: SATURDAY, JUNE 19, 2004
March 5th, 2008 at 6:28 pmPlease try to know what you are talking about before making stupid statements.
Comment by Rodham Gin
I think they were just trying to make a point about how scalia conveniently interprets laws to suit his needs……
Chocolate Jesus may have been technically wrong but I read the meaning ok……
saying somone is stupid implies that they can’t learn……ignorance is different…..
March 5th, 2008 at 6:30 pmwhoops….
Fred Hussein Hussein
March 5th, 2008 at 6:31 pmExcuse you. Scalia didn’t say torture isn’t against the law he said that it isn’t addressed by the constitution. You guys need to take your blinders off.
Comment by Tracy2 — March 5, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Comment by toasterhead — March 5, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
Hey Tracy2 if you have a rebuttal let’s hear it beacuse otherwise this guy just made you look REALLY, REALLY, REALLY INCREDIBLY STUPID!
March 5th, 2008 at 6:32 pmHey Tracy2 if you have a rebuttal let’s hear it beacuse otherwise this guy just made you look REALLY, REALLY, REALLY INCREDIBLY STUPID!
Comment by flavorino
see, here is the word stupid used correctly.
Fred Hussein Hussein
March 5th, 2008 at 6:35 pmIf torture isn’t “cruel and unusual punishment,†what possibly could be? The very question is beyond belief.
Comment by Daddy Love — March 5, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
Very well said. Welcome to TP.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:36 pmHey Tracy2 if you have a rebuttal let’s hear it because otherwise this guy just made you look REALLY, REALLY, REALLY INCREDIBLY STUPID!
Comment by flavorino — March 5, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
As if that’s some type of special feat or trick ?
March 5th, 2008 at 6:38 pmScalia would look great stretched out on a waterboard with bamboo splinters under the fingernails, crying his eyes out and wetting his pants.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:50 pmBad, but not unconstitutional. Enjoy, fatass.
That greasy little bastard Scalia is much better suited to be a 2nd rate small time Mafia hitman with delusions of grandeur than he is to be a Supreme Court justice.
~Hussein Annie
March 5th, 2008 at 6:54 pmNot the same, RG. Not the same AT ALL.
Got strawman??
March 5th, 2008 at 6:55 pmComment by Rodham Gin
You’re dancing around what was said…..do you think that the statement below is true? It was about the post by Chocolate Jesus.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
>Please try to know what you are talking about before making stupid >statements.
Listen, moron…”the press” is only slightly more inclusive of the written word than “speech is”… what about handwritten things? they didnt mention anythign about pens,asshat..
my point remains, if we take Scalias assanine logic literally, someone wouldnt have any 1st amendment claims about say, emails, because they involve neither SPEECH nor PRESSES.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:13 pmLet’s get that fat bastard queen Scalia on the waterboard.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:22 pmLet’s see if he dances and sings as well as Dubya.
I didn’t read through the whole thread, so pardon me if this has been covered, but doesn’t the constitution specifically state that we should adhere to all treaties, which would include the Geneva Convention.
The fact that Scalia doesn’t understand this is disgusting. Can he be impeached???
March 5th, 2008 at 7:22 pmdid the trooll, gin, get banned?
March 5th, 2008 at 7:23 pmis that why she changed her handle?
Comment by katy — March 5, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
Maybe she just got married??
March 5th, 2008 at 7:27 pmI don’t believe the question should be whether torture is “constitutional”. The Constitution addresses the structure of our government and our basic rights, but it does not define the sum of our laws. Torture should be considered “cruel and unusual punishment”, but that ban would only apply to American citizens.
Torture is however clearly prohibited by statute and by military regulation. Torture is recognized by civil courts, criminal courts, military courts, and international courts as illegal. Civilians, American military personnel, and foreign military personnel have all been punished for using torture in the past.
The only reason why these debates are taking place is because the Justice Department refuses to enforce the laws of the land by bringing those who have violated them to justice. No amount of hand wringing in Congress will change that. I wish they’d table some of these issues until February when the rule of law is reimposed.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:28 pmViolating the terms of a treaty is illegal because any treaty which is ratified by the Senate and signed by the President is considered the law of the land, but violating the terms of a treat is not properly “unconstitutional”. It’s kind of silly to talk of violating any law as being a “constitutional” manner. It’s like saying you’re violating the Constitution when you speed.
When Bush attempts to pledge our armed forced for the indefinite protection of a foreign power without proper treaty negotiations or ratification by the Senate, that is unconstitutional. Bush is asserting a unilateral privilege to negotiate treaties which is explicitly not granted to him in the Constitution.
But, we needn’t worry too much about it since any such agreement becomes null and void once he leaves office and is no longer able to enforce it.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:32 pmThank you fletc3her!
March 5th, 2008 at 7:38 pmIn defense of Scalia –
For torture to be unconstitutional, it would have to be cruel AND unusual.
The B-Team uses torture as the usual manner of interrogation (due to the fact that none of them ever served or have any experience with intelligence and as such, don’t understand why it is so ineffective and how it serves to harm American interests). Since it is not UNUSUAL for the B-Team, it is not unconstitutional.
Either that, or his defense is that he’s just another cheap fascist doing whatever dirty work the B-Team requires. That could be his defense: “You KNEW I was a cheap fascist when I was appointed. What do you expect?”
Not to digress, but does the B-Team’s legal team remind anyone else of the opening scene of Henry V. Next thing you know, Scalia will say that Bush has proper title as King of France.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:39 pmMaybe she just got married??
Comment by belac
That would explain the bad mood. :)
Juan Abdul Jabbar C
March 5th, 2008 at 7:40 pmNot to digress, but does the B-Team’s legal team remind anyone else of the opening scene of Henry V. Next thing you know, Scalia will say that Bush has proper title as King of France.
Comment by Skeeter1 — March 5, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
I agree…
Not to ‘mock’ but when the Bushies match rackets to balls it is rather more Bond than Shakespeare (or Federer for that matter)
“His jest will savour but of shallow wit,
When thousands weep more than did laugh at it.”
But for Scalia to say that torture is anything but illegal and unconstitutional marks him as a ’shallow wit’ and I hope to god someone fills him in before he digs the rest of us in any deeper…
March 5th, 2008 at 7:49 pmJuan Abdul Jabbar C
Comment by Juan C. — March 5, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
Way to go TP regulars. I’m a Muslim too.
Juan Abdul Hussien Friday
March 5th, 2008 at 7:54 pmHow in the hell can a real world Sopranos character get on the Supreme Court?
March 5th, 2008 at 7:56 pm>For torture to be unconstitutional, it would have to be cruel AND unusual.
good point, to be sure, although I’d love to see scalias strict consctructionist argument for the “plain meaning” of the term “unusual”…if ever there was a word that cried out for a subjective defintion, its “unusual”…
I had a feeling someone like J Edgar Hoover has a much different definition of “unusual” than I do…
although someone did also raise the excellent question “if torture isnt cruel and unusual, what is?”…. I guess the answer to that is….what KIND of torture is it we’re talking about? it just a plain vanilla electrified anal fisting, or the more exotic “Fallujah Steamer”?….
inquiring minds..
although to be honest, I think you’d be hard pressed to get these goons to even admit torture is cruel…
March 5th, 2008 at 8:01 pmSomeone should put a horse’s head in Scalia’s bed.
BobCorleonewurst
March 5th, 2008 at 8:19 pm>Sanctioning torture : How U.S. lawyers read the Constitution
Scary…the jist of this argument: “we’re at war until i say we arent, and while we are, I can do whatever i want”…
im not sure how one could argue how this is any different than a dictator…the founding fathers would be rolling in thier graves
March 5th, 2008 at 8:21 pm>Does the constitutional prohibition against cruel and
> unusual punishment forbid torture?
> No. That prohibition, set out in the Eighth Amendment to the
> Constitution, “was designed to protect those convicted of crimes,”
> says the report.
Ahhhh ok…so, its ok to torture someone, as long as we dont give them a trial first…I would love to force these people to carry the trainwrecks they call arguments to thier absurd conclusions…the thing being tortured the most by these peoples arguments is logic itself…
They are using the “purpose” or “motive” argument, which is completely absurd..nowhere in the constition does it say or imply that the MOTIVATION for the government doing something is relevant to whether its constitutional or not.,.it either is or isnt, whether they are intending to be evil big brother, or simply to blow sunshine up our collective buttocks is utterly and wholly irrlevant,,,
March 5th, 2008 at 8:31 pmScalia is a scumbag, facist, useless POS, meatball sucking, enemy of the state!!!!!
IMPEACH THIS BASTARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
March 5th, 2008 at 8:34 pmJuan Abdul Jabbar C
Comment by Juan C. — March 5, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
I love it. :-)
March 5th, 2008 at 8:49 pmDamn!
~Hussein Zooey
March 5th, 2008 at 8:49 pmYou know our country is officially shot to hell when a Supreme Court Justice would say some sh*t like Scalia did about torture.
Pathetic.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:00 pmI love it. :-)
Comment by Zooey
Heh.
BTW, I’m just a sheep going with the flow but what’s the reason for the Muslim names?
Juan Abdul Jabbar C
March 5th, 2008 at 9:17 pmTorture is not banned in the constitution but it is against US statute and international treaties which were ratified by the US. That depends on what your definition of illegal is. Scalia needs to be impeached.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:10 pmjuan… heh… abdul jabbar… (basketball fan?)
it started here, at the FAST thread…
you can blame me…
but i credit randi…
- Hussein Katy
March 5th, 2008 at 10:11 pmScalia is a “strict constructionist” so obviously he KNOWS that the founding fathers were very pro-torture. When they put in the 8th amendment they all knew that it had NOTHING to do with torture.
Why the hell can’t these people be removed from office? Why?
March 5th, 2008 at 10:22 pm# 79 – YES TORTURE IS EXPLICITY BANNED IN THE CONSTITUTION
Read it:
March 5th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
NO NO NO NO NO!!
Bad!!!
all caps:
THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU OR ME, CITIZENS OR NON-CITIZENS.
IT APPLIES TO THE GOVERNMENT, PERIOD.
IT IS A LIST OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN AND CANNOT DO.
IT DOES NOT “GIVE” YOU RIGHTS
IT ONLY GIVES THE GOVERNMENT POWERS AND RESTRICTIONS
I.E. IF THE CONSTITUTION SAYS “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended” or “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial…” THOSE ARE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT
This means Guantanamo is illegal, period.
This means that the military commissions act is unconstitutional, period.
Etc Etc Etc
We have an ILLEGAL government right now.
Thank you all for not voting for Ron Paul.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:38 pmAbdul Jabbar was the first name I could think of…
Thanks for the link.
Juan Abdul Jabbar C
March 5th, 2008 at 10:48 pmFrom the linked offered up thead, I just LOVE this phrase:
“president’s exclusive constitutional power to torture”
Can the strict CONSTRUCTIONALIST “jurist”, Ahem, please point out where in the Constitution it says this? What was it Article II, Section…
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/09.html#1
”Congress has the power not only to raise and support and govern armies but to declare war. It has, therefore, the power to provide by law for carrying on war. This power necessarily extends to all legislation essential to the prosecution of war with vigor and success, except such as interferes with the command of the forces and the conduct of campaigns. That power and duty belong to the President and Commander-in-Chief. Both these powers are derived from the Constitution, but neither is defined by that instrument. Their extent must be determined by their nature, and by the principles of our institutions.
”. . . We by no means assert that Congress can establish and apply the laws of war where no war has been declared or exists.”
Has war been declared in Iraq or Afghanistan (The Silent War?)
March 5th, 2008 at 11:00 pmOh sorry.
99Luf HUssein Balloons
March 5th, 2008 at 11:00 pm.
Dear Scabliea,
Since when did the Geneva Conventions 3 and 4 as ratified by the Senate become irrelevant?
.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:51 am.
#22 Comment by Tracy2 — March 5, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
Sorry for being late on this but…
BULLSHIT!
Know your Constitution.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
If you think that torture isn’t a cruel and unusual form of punishment inflicted, then please parse it for us. Albeit, the phrase is general and vague, it does, however address torturous acts that inflict cruel and unusual punishments.
.
March 6th, 2008 at 2:04 am.
#24 Comment by Tracy2 — March 5, 2008 @ 6:03 pm
Sorry…
WRONG AGAIN!!!
All historians know that the original Federal Constitution was NOT passed into being. Only when the Bill of Rights was to be added did the Founders then agree upon the entire body of the Constitution of the USA.
See, the Bill of Rights, as originally set, are the protections granted to the people of this Nation. The Bill of Rights is the guarantee of what the Federal Government CAN NOT infringe upon. THESE ARE OUR RIGHTS as a People, of what we can expect from our Government; our Protection, our SECURITIES from an aggressive tyranny.
The remainder of the Constitution is what is known as a POSITIVE WRIT. Simply put, the remainder is what the limits are of the Government; What the Government CAN DO.
Originally, as written, We the People had no protections, no SECURITIES of SAFETY, of LIBERTY, of JUSTICE, of FREEDOM.
R E M E M B E R:
THEY(sic) HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS.
It is the Bill of Rights that provide you your SECURITY, your SAFETY, your FREEDOM. Now, THEY(sic) lobby to undermine those very SECURITIES and FREEDOMS so as to change that boundary of what THEY(sic) can do to We the People.
.
March 6th, 2008 at 2:17 am.
#37 Comment by Daddy Love — March 5, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
Welcome Daddy Love, to our hell.
Remember:
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.
You can, however, talk about how silly and buffoonish they are.
.
March 6th, 2008 at 2:23 am.
#52 Comment by RUCerious — March 5, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
And of course it would be ABSURD to think you wouldn’t slap the shit out of him to boot…
.
March 6th, 2008 at 2:28 am.
Max-Hussein-1 …?
.
March 6th, 2008 at 2:36 amScalia reads the Constitution the same way a creationist reads the Bible; literally except when it suits his argument.
March 6th, 2008 at 3:20 amJustice is supposed to be blind [unbiased] now its insane.
March 6th, 2008 at 5:39 amImpeachment. It applies to Supreme Court Criminals too. Supreme Court Criminal Justices can be impeached and here we have a clear case of a “Justice” that needs impeachment.
What part of cruel and unusual punishment does Scalia not understand? He is obviously defining cruelty down to be absolutely meaningless.
He is unfit to be a Judge, unfit to be an American. Impeach and deport.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:08 amJustUs Scalia is an EVIL man and he’s going to go to hell right along with Sadam. What’s the differece between Scalia and Sadam? One wears a black robe and the other doesn’t, other than that they are both nasty hateful ugly little men who can’t stand those who question authority. If you don’t believe me, the following are facts. Sadam torture people for no reason, and Justus Scalia wants to torture them for no reason. Sadam believed in absolute power for government basically a dictatorship, so does Scalia, he votes for the government and against the individual 100 percent of the time.
This man who is celebrated by one party (republicans) has some serious control and anger problems, and is a danger to the very Constitution he is sworn to intrepret. He’s a litte man, not in stature, but in the mind. He couldn’t touch the shoes of those he hates like Justice Thurgood Marshall, if the stood on the highest mountain in the world. In the end I suspect that he will be an old and evil but lonely man. If he didn’t live a previleged life maybe he’d understand those less fortunate than him, nope, he wouldn’t evil doers never do. May his soul rest in hell forever when he finally goes to meet his maker.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:28 pmI think that Scalia’s mistaken here. He insists on looking at the Eighth Amendment only, and then insisting that the “cruel and unusual” prohibition is only WRT “punishment” post-conviction and that torture to obtain information is not “punishment” (but rather some noble undertaking).
I think he’s wrong; I find it absurd that the Constitution prevents “cruel” treatment of those convicted of a crime but would allow the same treatment of someone who hasn’t been so convicted and who may in fact be innocent of any crime. Scalia ignores the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and substantive “due process”. Under his theory that torture is fine as long as it serves some benign (or llaudatory) purpose, couldn’t the gummint just dismember someone because the various fresh body parts and organs could potentiall same multiple lives?
Cheers,
Cheers,
March 6th, 2008 at 3:00 pmYou are assuming that those in question have rights under the U.S. Constitution…they don’t.
Comment by Tracy2 — March 6, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
1. Where in the Constitution does it specify that the word “people” applies only to U.S. citizens?
2. The U.S. is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Charter, and the UN Convention Against Torture, all of which prohibit the use of torture. As international treaties are specifically addressed in the Constitution as a power of the federal government, it thus follows that the Constitution binds the government to obey these treaties.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:49 am