APP - Whats he afraid of?

Damocles said:
It binds the judges and executives of each state to that particular law, it does not supersede the constitution itself. One law cannot supersede that which gives it authority. It specifically excludes the Constitution of the US and says only that it supersedes the constitutions of the States.
Click to expand...

now...if you could only find one single post where I EVER said that any treaty superceded the constitution itself, you'd have some sort of a point.
 
maineman said:
nowhere have I said that the UN supercedes the constitution. Common law does not apply when statute clearly defines torture, and that definition is, according to OUR constitution, the supreme law of the land.

Mirriam Webster's definition is absolutely irrelevant.

sorry
Click to expand...
That statute doesn't apply to folks that aren't signers to it and don't abide by its precepts; common law does. Sorry. :pke:
 
Southern Man said:
You are again wrong, and can't offer any evidence to the contrary. So since you have nothing further to add...
Click to expand...

Article 2 of the convention prohibits torture, and requires parties to take effective measures to prevent it in any territory under its jurisdiction. This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever"[5] may be invoked to justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict.[6] Torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies.[6] Neither can it be justified by orders from superior officers or public officials.[7] The prohibition on torture applies to all territories under a party's effective jurisdiction, and protects all people under its effective control, regardless of citizenship or how that control is exercised.[6] Since the Conventions entry into force, this absolute prohibition has become accepted as a principle of customary international law.[6]

Because it is often difficult to distinguish between cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and torture, the Committee regards Article 16's prohibition of such treatment as similarly absolute and non-derogable.[6]
 
Yurt said:
what does this mean:

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.
Click to expand...

it means that in a conflict between state and federal law, federal law wins....
 
maineman said:
read article VI of the constitution.

if you need help understanding it, let me know.
Click to expand...

no help needed....no constitutional lawyer would give you the time of day based on that argument.....here's a one sentence summary from the wiki article....can't say it any clearer, so I will quote it...

It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be upheld. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law.
Click to expand...

the clause does NOT make treaties, or even federal statutes the equivalent of the Constitution......to the contrary, as the article also states....
Clause two provides that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
no help needed....
Click to expand...

then what part of
"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"

do you NOT understand?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???....uh, no.....treaties have power, but it is power granted BY the constitution....
Click to expand...

then how are both the "supreme law of the land?"....

any treaty of course cannot supersede the constitution....but they both share status as "supreme law"....

the word "and" and "shall" is mandetory language....you can't get around it
 
maineman said:
then what part of
"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"

do you NOT understand?
Click to expand...

the part where you try to make it mean something completely unrelated to what it says......
 
Yurt said:
then how are both the "supreme law of the land?"....

any treaty of course cannot supersede the constitution....but they both share status as "supreme law"....

the word "and" and "shall" is mandetory language....you can't get around it
Click to expand...
It makes it equal to laws passed pursuant to the Constitution, one could not pass a treaty that violates the constitution without it being capable of being struck down for non-constitutionality for instance.
 
unrelated?

Ther is no relatedness being discussed here at all. the words are clear and unambiguous. the constitution, laws made in pursuance of the constitution, and treaties that we make are the supreme law of the land.

that is not RELATED or UNRELATED to anything. it IS what it is.
 
Yurt said:
then how are both the "supreme law of the land?"....
Click to expand...

in the sense that they both carry more authority than state law, state judges, state constitutions....

look at it this way....federal law creates treaties and eliminates them....how can you argue that treaties and federal law "share" power.....treaties cannot change federal law....ditto federal law and the constitution, and certainly the constitution and treaties.....

this clause of the constitution is about nothing more than state's rights versus federal rights.....you both are trying to make it into something about "treaties" versus "constitution" versus "statutes"......
 
Damocles said:
It makes it equal to laws passed pursuant to the Constitution, one could not pass a treaty that violates the constitution without it being capable of being struck down for non-constitutionality for instance.
Click to expand...

absolutely... are you suggesting that the UN treaty against torture violates the constitution?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top