APP - Whats he afraid of?

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.

in reality, it isn't the equal....if a president signs a treaty (Kyoto for example), it isn't law until Congress passes a further resolution making it a law....the treaty itself isn't enforceable, the law Congress passes accepting it is.....
 
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.

so what state law are you arguing is in conflict with the treaty?.....unless you are, your argument is unrelated to the clause of the constitution you are raising.....
 
He said plainly he's afraid of crippling the agencies effectiveness.

Why can't Jarod read?

I know what he said, I do not belive that is really what Cheney is afraid of. I belive he is afraid of being exposed for what he is.
 
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]

That's not evidence to the contrary. Sorry.
 
so what state law are you arguing is in conflict with the treaty?.....unless you are, your argument is unrelated to the clause of the constitution you are raising.....

Are you suggesting that we are not required to follow the terms of the UN treaty against torture? Are you suggesting that that treaty does not have the force of the supreme law of the land? Or are you saying that, somehow, that treaty contradicts the constitution, and if you are saying that, please show me what portion of the treaty does so.
 
the treaty wording is quite explicit.... and it IS the supreme law of the land.

and you cannot refute a word of it.

*shrug*
Just because you keep repeating the same shit doesn't make it true. You never addressed my points about common law. That obviously means that you have no argument. *shrug*
 
I know what he said, I do not belive that is really what Cheney is afraid of. I belive he is afraid of being exposed for what he is.

Believe me, Cheney is not afraid of anything or anyone. He spoke the truth and now his popularity ratings are going up.
 
Back
Top