Skip to comments.Conservatives Drop Their Love for the Constitution
Posted on 12/09/2011 7:04:01 PM PST by giottoEdited on 12/10/2011 10:32:56 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Santayana defined fanaticism as redoubling your effort while losing sight of your goal. Americas recent discussions about the war on terror would give him few grounds to change his view.
Several GOP presidential candidates have said they would support bringing back waterboarding, a practice the U.S. prosecuted as a war crime after WWII. Apparently its only torture when the other side does it.
Last week the Senate was consumed with debate over a defense bill. Among its provisions: an amendment by New Hampshire Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte to nullify an executive order banning torture. Another proposal: allowing U.S. citizens captured on U.S. soil to be held indefinitely without charge by the U.S. military. (An amendment to strike that language from the bill failed, despite the commendable support of Virginia Sens. Mark Warner and Jim Webb.) Yet another provision would require civilian authorities to hand over terrorism suspects to the military.
Supporters of the detention provision noted language stipulating that the requirement to detain a person in military custody does not extend to citizens in the United States. But as critics of the measure noted, there is a difference between what is required and what is allowed. The bill does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, according to Rep. Justin Amash. Sen. Lindsey Graham put it more bluntly: the bill declares that the homeland is part of the battlefield and those suspected of terrorism can be held indefinitely without charge, American citizen or not.
Excerpt, read more at Reason.com
We are fast approaching the point where we have neither liberty nor security.
The constitution is not a suicide document.
The pollies like power and the illusion of knowing better than we do what’s best for us.
Too many of the people don’t want the responsibility of freedom.
We need God to raise up a prophet. We’re in trouble.
My guess, soon the only true Constitution-loving conservatives will be practicing Christians. Why? Because sooner or later, it comes down to either trusting man (government) or God (government-limiting Constitution).
It makes too much sense to declare that the whole reason for this is that the Feds have imported lots of Mohammedans into this country, that if they were exported 99.8% of the threat would be gone, and then there would be no need to impose Big Brother restrictions on U.S. citizens our founders would never have tolerated (”Patriot Act”, strip searches of grandmothers at airports, warrantless wiretaps, etc. etc.)
Because it makes too much sense, the Republicrats will never do it. So expect more of the same.
What piece of garbage article. Belongs in file 13.
Please cite for me, Article and Section, of the US Constitution that gives either the Legislative or the Executive branch the specific, enumerated power to strip American citizens of their 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment rights.
Thanks in advance.
So in other words, NOT giving the president the power to disappear his political enemies, simply by labeling them “terrorists,” would be suicide? NOT strip searching 87 year old woman at airports would be suicide?
I assume you’ll be apologizing personally to the Japanese for their treatment during WWII.
If you're speaking of the American citizens of Japanese descent who were wrongfully stripped of their Constitutional rights and property by Roosevelt, you're damned right I will.
You should, too.
While the idea that waterboarding is torture is ridiculous, the quote "The constitution is not a suicide document" is a scary argument.
It presumes that the Constitution has problems that could get us killed, so it's OK to ignore these flaws if the need arises. That is exactly what the liberals argue. They think this "inherently flawed document" has to be ignored for the higher good of society.
If the Constitution could get us killed, then amend it! Once we justify violating the Constitution, then on what do we base the authority of the government? At that point, the government is acting without authority, and I do not trust the best government, let alone our government.
As for waterboarding, I know someone who was waterboarded by the US military. It was part of her training. So are these kooks who call it torture suggesting we're torturing our soldiers? If so, they should demand we stop torture during training.
Over the years, Presidents have claimed to have emergency powers in times of crisis. These Inherent Powers have been used both at home and overseas. The most common use of emergency powers is to declare a state of emergency which allows the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to bypass normal administrative and jurisdictional rules. Declarations of emergency can also provide special federal aid such as during the Flood of 1993 along the Mississippi River or in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. President Abraham Lincoln used his emergency powers to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in Maryland during the American Civil War. President Harry Truman was also denied emergency powers by the Court in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer when he tried to nationalize the nation’s steel mills.
Got that off Wikipedia.
It’s definitely a balancing act.
If the constitution literally stands in the way of finding out that somebody is going to drop a nuke on New York city, what do you do?
At the same time, how do you prevent the seizure of rights from becoming permanent.
Apparently its only torture when the other side does it.
Well duh, war crimes are only committed by the losing side. It’s always been thus.
Where exactly are these so called "emergency powers" enumerated in the Constitution? Article and Section if you please.
Until you can do that, every word you type is utter bull****.
Youre welcome to show me that they cannot ever, even if it means the death of every US citizen, defend the country as needed.
Obviously, it has too do with navigable waters or interstate commerce. Oh, maybe the general welfare clause. It’s too the point that I wish the feds would just drop the whole constitution and just admit that they do things because they have the biggest army.
That has yet to be seen. If I had been a delegate, I would have argued for a REQUIREMENT that any politician or government employee convicted of ANY crime, be hanged by the neck until dead.
That might have extended our most excellent run.
But as it is, the Constitution is pretty much a dead letter document, honored only in the breach.
I predict suicide for the former Republic, unless things change back to the founder's intent.
And if this one doesn't work out... we can write a new one, we have a history of doing that.
And we all know how well that worked out.
constitution bump for later..........
New Orleans was a failure of the state and city governments. George Bush had pre-authorized any requested help by the state governor and city mayor.
Unfortunately neither requested any help.
Just an analysis of the presidetial warpowers. If you read the document, you’ll find a part where it says that the president basically has unlimited authority to defend the country.
What does that mean? "...every US citizen..." IS the country. "They" exist, in theory, only to defend the right of those citizens to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Did you think the "country" means the federal government?
I meant the feds.
Unlimited means without limit.
This does mean that it’s both focused inward and outward.
Any person that thinks waterboarding is a war crime is not worth listening to.
The fed is at all times (supposed to be) limited by that enabling document, the Constitution. That is their authorization to act on out behalf.
If you have a problem with presidential warpowers, don’t tell me about it. The Forefathers set up the document, not me.
All it says is that for the defense of the country, the president has unlimited power. It doesn’t say unlimited, in an outward direction but very limited in an inward direction. It just says unlimited.
I think you can figure out what that means.
Well, A.Barton Hincle, I know what the A stands for.
What "presidential warpowers" exactly do you refer to?
Later on other ancestors returned as a conquering army to burn the place to the ground.
Such are the usages of war.
What a lot of folks forget is that we are in a state of war with foreign barbarians and savages. They have friends in America who also deserve to die.
So you’re citing justice.gov as an authority for emergency war powers. How about citing the constitution?
wouldn’t ususally waste time on this. but it is sad to see writing that screams of a person who can neither properly read or reason, holding forth on the genius of our founders.
where this person’s misunderstanding (giving the benefit of the doubt) is rooted includes failures to understand what a battlefield is, what a commander is, and what our founders defined as the separation of a hierachy of derived and implied powers is in the constitution (as established by our founders).
the problem is partially the statist smokescreen and the living and breathing standards wickedly applied by statists bent on the constitution’s destruction. perhaps a course in logic and a careful rereading is in order for this writer.
Speak for yourself.
This guy who is upset at Muslim terrorists being held for the duration who may be technically citizens (born in the US but not loyal to it) probably thinks it was fine for Lincoln to imprison US citizens for the duration for defending their homes. (Of course the men Lincoln imprisoned did not regard themselves as citizens of the United States—but he did.)
uh, excuse me, but this is called a *comment*, i.e., personal judgement based on fact, reason or opinion on the content of a posted article. i believe that is one of the purposes of FR. and i always speak for myself. but good luck to you.
Oh the truth. And here we are following the sames cycle as always in the election process as well. Conservatives start out with “I’ll Never vote for him”. But in the end they are attacking anyone who won’t. It is so predictable that I even told friends it would happen, and it did. And it will get much worse. The same cycle of human ignorance and stupidity that I have watched over and over these past 13 years.
There is the old saying about fooling me once....Twice....But you could fool most (so called) conservatives a thousand times it seems, and they still would not catch on. Human nature itself has rendered me with a feeling of hopelessness for the future. The brilliant people of the past no longer exist.
Actually, it's only a violation of the Geneva Conventions when done to an enemy who has agreed to abide by them himself, which doesn't include a terrorist head honcho and unlawful enemy combatant who has information about possible future terrorist attacks.
Reason has lost all semblance of rationality.
At least 3-4 thousand men of the US Military have been subjected to Waterboarding by other members of the US Military in training.
Including myself, (thus the tag after my name).
It's not torture, it's training for those who must kill and hope not to be caught.
I was referring to your use of “or” with “neither.” It’s not just a grammatical error; it’s also a logical error. If you’re going to pick nits with someone on their logic, first make sure your own is impeccable.
This was well wrangled over in the oughties. The GTMO version of this is more psychological than physical, involving a cloth which blocks any of the water from getting into the “torturee’s” mouth or nose. IIRC in WWII the Axis did not bother with the cloth, it was literally an open air drowning.
And that document also spells out the conditions under which he may use those warpowers--namely, a DECLARED WAR. None of the so-called wars we are currently engaged in are declared wars. In fact the "War on Terror" is not even against an actual entity. If jihadists are our enemy, then why not declare war on jihadists? By defining it so loosely, anyone who is perceived as a terrorist is the enemy and therefore subject to the whimsical use of these warpowers by a vindictive, partisan president. That "terrorist" could be you or me.
Therefore you're an Enemy of the United States Constitution, and Enemy of the American people, and have put yourself in direct conflict with the stated purpose or this venerable Forum.
Congratulations. Not many people have managed to do so much in so little time.
Now, GTFOOH you anti-Constitutional piece of ****. Merry Christmas.
Where exactly in the Constitution is that spelled out? Which Article and Section specifically says that the President spells out these "unlimited" powers?
It just says unlimited.
Where exactly in the Constitution does the word "unlimited" appear? In which Article and Section is it used?
Take your time. I'll wait.
So the President could bang your wife, daughter, or son up the b*** in the name of National Defense? Is that what you're saying?
sorry bud. no time for the grammar, punctuation police. living my life. next time i’m back in grad school i’ll concern myself with that stuff.