1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Could State Sovereignty Mean Curtains for Bushco?

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Sihouette, Feb 13, 2009.

  1. Sihouette

    Sihouette Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The fetal stages of the rebellion begin...

    Wonder if it will have any bearing on this little item:

    Oh sure, it's all "symbolic" now...but you know how babies love to grow bigger. I'm telling you, this French Revolution thing better get studied by all members of Congress...and fast..or soon they won't have to worry their pretty heads about anything..
     
  2. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    How ridiculous, federal law supercedes state law. And what ground does a court in Vermont take jurisdiction over a case like this? Hint: None.
     
  3. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    If it was found that .....

    If it was in fact found that most likely, that Dick and Bush authorized Torture, against US and Internatinal Law....would you support them going on trial?
    this question is not for the lefties on here...
     
  4. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Re: If it was found that .....


    Where would this trial occur, and who would have jurisdiction?

    Aside from that, if he has an OLC decision and Congressional authorization (which he will argue he had) you would be hard pressed to make a case for much of anything.
     
  5. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    Re: If it was found that .....

    1. lets say it was against US Law and Constitution

    2. lets say it was found to be a war crime, under Geneva Convention.

    chose for both as if seperate.

    Also congress can not approve you to commit a war crime, or break the law. I was only taking orders does not work...works less when you are the president and vp.
     
  6. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Re: If it was found that .....

    If (and this is a huge IF) this was the case, then it would be a domestic matter, settled in Federal Court. However, I do not think Bush violated any part of the Constitution..

    Again a huge if, but if this is the case, I would still hold the trial domestically in Federal Court. In theory, a treaty is on the same level of the Constitution was ratified (there can be exceptions, and they are important in this regard) and therefore would simply be the same violation as in case 1.

    However, it should be important to note that the United States never agreed to the part of the Geneva Conventions that would apply to these people, therefore is not bound by it. I do not think there is a case that Bush violated any international law either.


    Congress makes the law, they can approve you to do whatever they want.
     
  7. Depeche Toad

    Depeche Toad New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dream on.

    There will be no prosecution of Bush or anyone else because it would involve outing information gathering and interrogation techniques Barack Obama still wants, because they still work. If you don't believe me, go read about what the ACLU thinks of Obama keeping Bush's secrets.

    This stuff is strictly for the tinfoil hat circuit.
     
  8. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Did you notice in the Executive Order to close GITMO, and the one to end "torture" there was plenty of wiggle-room left, and a lot was left open to some interpretations.
     
  9. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horse Country
    The clear trend for states to reclaim sovereignty is a clear signal that they recognize that it has been lost.

    Yes this is a trend. And about time. We have lost too many checks and balances and we need to reclaim them.
     
  10. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Only where Constitutionally authorized. In all other cases, State law prevails over Federal. In fact, Federal law is null and void. See Amendment 10.

    Of course, that's one of the most-violated parts of the U.S. Constitution. But violations (or liberal wishful thinking) don't change what the Constitution says.

    Not that I've seen. More like superficial window dressing. We'll see if it continues and increases.

    I couldn't agree more.
     
  11. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Under the Supremacy Clause in Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the constitution, it states, "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."

    Given this, it is entirely reasonable (and accepted) to then argue that Federal Law taking precedence over State Law has Constitutional basis and clear authority.

    Amendment 10 states. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    Nowhere in this does it state or imply that Article VI Paragraph II is made void. Given this, the power granted the Federal Government under the Supremacy Clause is to make laws that will supercede State Laws. The 10th Amendment would not end this.

    This is at least one counter-argument. (I personally think it carries some validity)

    You are correct, wishful thinking does not change what Article VI Paragraph II says on the matter.
     
Loading...

Share This Page