Unregistered
Moderator
So would you agree that if an interrogation technique does not cause physical damage, that it is not torture?
So would you agree that if an interrogation technique does not cause physical damage, that it is not torture?
Not in 1789 it didn't.
You are going to sit there and tell me that women didn't have the right to vote, but when the framers used the word "he" they intended to include ladies to hold positions in government as well as the office of chief executive. I think not.
There are plenty of interrogation techniques that are not torture that are not constitutional. What's the big deal?
If you wanted a straight answer, you'd have alread found it.I am just trying to find out what torture is, and don't understand why no one will give a straight answer.
Yes, in 1789 it did.
I am just trying to find out what torture is, and don't understand why no one will give a straight answer.
Can they torture you then for information on where they are if it has nothing to do with
1. Punishment?
2. Prosecuting you?
When you begin to argue in any fashion that torture can be allowed under the COTUS I become worried. Some here seem to think they have found some wiggle room where it is allowed. I am worried that the path that leads us to find it acceptable for use on our "enemies" may all too easily then be applied to those "enemies" within our own borders and who happen to have US citizenship.
Baloney. You're going to tell me they intended women to be able to be president when they denied women the right to vote?
I'm telling you they did not prohibit a woman being president. But as I said before, I suspect they didn't really consider it.
I doubt he'll hold to that ethic when he gets the nomination and starts bombarding us with commercials. :barf:One of the few virtues of John McCain is that he is the only president willing to commit to a non-torture policy.
They didn't consider it because such an idea was ridiculous to them. It went without saying that men governed. To put a direct prohibition on women holding office (though using the word "he" is pretty straight forward) would be useless. Since women couldn't vote, and men weren't going to vote for a woman, how would she ever hold office? As such, what I said originally stands. In 1789 "he" meant exactly that, men only.
Similarly, for the framers to include a sentence saying "we intend for this constitution to only apply citizens in america" is ridiculous as well because for them it was common sense.
They could have specified male citizens; they didn't. Granted it would have seemed strange at the time, but I submit that you're reading far too much into the pronoun "he" -- especially since that pronoun is, and was, also used in the gender-neutral case.
I don't actually know if they considered the possibility of a female president; considering the time, I doubt it (but could be wrong). If they did consider it, they obviously found it acceptable. If not, well, it doesn't matter anyway as it was not prohibited.
The framers were careful in their choice of words; they used "citizen" when they meant it, and "people" when they wanted to be more general. Remember, at the time there were slaves, Indians, and aliens present in the country. Such people were not citizens.
Scalia said stronger measures could be taken when a witness refused to answer questions.
Baloney. You're going to tell me they intended women to be able to be president when they denied women the right to vote?
On what planet are you on that allows you to argue that the framers were fine with women in government when they denied them the most basic right of a democratic government.
Until you show me some evidence that back in 1789 the word "he" was interchangable when used in the governmental sense, your position is flawed.
Thanks for proving my point. None of the folks you listed were granted any rights under the constitution.
Slaves were property, not people. Indians were prohibited from doing most anything where government was concerned.
The 2nd amendment says "the right of the people". However the same guys who wrote this didn't allow slaves or indians (when they were within their control) to have weapons.
That should tell you that the framers didn't intend the term "people" to mean everyone within the national borders.
"[T]he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by 'the people of the United States.' The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people.' See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ('Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble') (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ('The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States') (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. "
So let me get this straight: your position is that a constitutional amendment would be required in order for a woman to be president, even though it is not prohibited in Article II where the qualifications for president are laid out? All due to the use of a pronoun?
Webster's dictionary from 1828 indicate the use may be "of common gender" when used in the general sense.
While true, that is a meaningless statement. The Constitution does not grant rights to citizens either; it grants powers to the federal government.
That's mostly true, but also see Worcester v. Georgia -- Indian tribes had sovereignty on their lands. Slaves were not granted rights, of course, but that's essentially why slavery was abolished; see also Dred Scott v. Sandford.
"[T]he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by 'the people of the United States.' The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people.' See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ('Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble') (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ('The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States') (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. "
I am sorry but it should be pretty clear the gov't has no right, since it was never given one in the COTUS that I see, to use torture to gain information simply because it is unrelated to a punishment of prosecution of you.
It would have been just as nonsensical for them (you remember this is still the era of kings and monarchies)
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States
Again you prove my point. The constitution in its original form didn't intend for "the people" to mean everyone. "The people" were to choose members of the house, and yet we know that blacks, indians and women could not vote. Thus, "the people" wasn't meant to include the public at large.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Link please.
The constitution did not recognize the rights of the people that you listed, even though they were born in america and lived here.
In otherwords, "the people" doesn't mean everybody in the country.
Need I mention Queen Elizabeth I?
I still disagree, for the following reason: I believe the manner of the elections was left to the states; thus the use of "People" grants the states the power to decide which people choose members of the house, rather than the federal government making that determination. Also consider this bit from Aricle I:
This clearly shows that the framers distinguished between different types of people (free, indentured servants, slaves, indians, and "all other" people). Other similar passages show that the framers distinguished between People and Citizens.
The 14th Amendment makes this a moot point; still, the Constitution doesn't exactly explain what is meant by "People". It is clearly distinct from "Citizens" however, and I believe that at, e.g., women's rights under the 4th and 5th amendments were protected.
However, "People" clearly has a more broad definition than "Citizens." And in the case of several protections from the Bill of Rights (especially the 4th & 5th amendments, for example), I do believe that the meaning of People should have a meaning similar to those people protected by clause 1 of the 14th Amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.