Treaties, per the U.S. Constitution, reign supreme over all other U.S. law, presuming that they've been lawfully signed by the President and ratified by the Senate.
To say otherwise is to deny what our very Constitution says.
Posted on 02/02/2004 2:15:54 PM PST by quidnunc
By the end of 2003, after months of falling popularity and an unceasing barrage of criticism from Democratic presidential aspirants, George W. Bush suddenly seemed to be leading a charmed life. His surprise visit to U.S. troops in Baghdad over the Thanksgiving holiday introduced a note of high confidence and inspiration. Two weeks later, the world was treated to footage of a helpless and disheveled Saddam Hussein in American custody. Although attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq continued, their ferocity diminished amid promising signs that the battle to rebuild Iraq and fight terrorism elsewhere was on course. Within days of Saddam Hussein’s capture came the announcement that Muammar Qaddafi had agreed to open his program for amassing nuclear weapons to international inspection. That same week, France, Germany, and Russia, persistent opponents of the Iraq war, acceded to American requests to forgive a portion of Iraqi debts. By mid-December, a CBS poll showed 59 percent of Americans approving of the way the President was handling Iraq — the highest level since early July.
At home, there was still more good news for the White House. In late November, the Commerce Department reported that the economy had grown at a startling 8.2 percent in the third quarter — the highest level in nearly two decades and a figure that exceeded even the most optimistic projections. There followed a cascade of other positive economic announcements. Inflation and interest rates were at their lowest point in decades. Productivity was historically high. Housing starts were soaring. Manufacturing, only recently thought to be disappearing from the America landscape, hit its highest level in twenty years.
Congress, meanwhile, had passed a bipartisan overhaul of Medicare that, while highly controversial, was clearly a political victory for the President. Flush with this legislative success, in late December the White House released word that it was considering an overhaul of Social Security — and possibly re-establishing manned flight to the moon.
Is everybody happy, then? Hardly. For one thing, not since Richard Nixon has there been a Republican occupant of the White House who has provoked such naked antipathy from his political enemies on the Left. Bill and Hillary Clinton generated their own fevered response from the angriest and most conspiratorial corners of the Republican Right. But what is striking about today’s liberal hatred of George Bush is not how shrill it is, but rather how even the most extreme outbursts have been fully embraced by mainstream Democratic politicians and journalists.
But criticism of the President has not been confined to Democrats or the Left. For the past year, a chorus of dissent has arisen as well among some conservative pundits and intellectuals — the very group one might have thought would rush to the defense of a President under assault by his liberal antagonists. In a particularly harsh and surprising condemnation, the talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh told his listeners in December that Bush’s legacy to the nation would be the greatest increase in domestic spending, and one of the greatest setbacks for liberty, in modern times. “This may be compassionate,” warned Limbaugh, playing on Bush’s 2000 campaign slogan, “but it is not ‘conservatism’ at all.” To be sure, conservative discontent with President Bush is likely to have few if any political consequences in the short term; unlike his father before him, George W. Bush will win the Republican nomination unopposed. Despite grumbling among some conservatives in the House of Representatives, no splinter group of disaffected Republicans seems set to take on the cause of Bush’s Democratic opponent the way some embraced Clinton in 1992. Still, Bush’s ability to remain a popular Republican President while causing so much dismay on both Left and Right does demand an assessment of the direction in which he has been taking the GOP and the country. Should he be reelected this fall, he will remain not only a controversial figure but possibly one of the most consequential Presidents we have had in the modern era.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
Treaties, per the U.S. Constitution, reign supreme over all other U.S. law, presuming that they've been lawfully signed by the President and ratified by the Senate.
To say otherwise is to deny what our very Constitution says.
...
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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
So a treaty approved by the president and 2/3 of the Senate can override the constitution that requires 2/3 of the Senate, 2/3 of the House and 3/4 of the state legislatures to amend. I think NOT. The rule has been interpreted as treaties are binding on our internal legal system only to the extent that they do not violate the constitution itself. Due process still applies and Bush is a criminal for imprisoning Padilla without due process.
Are you claiming that due process is ever dispensible?
Of course.
Battlefield detainees do not require due process. For instance, even though more than 1,000 U.S. citizens went to Germany to fight for Hitler during WW2, when we captured them on the battlefield we were not required to stop combat to give those U.S. citizens due process (i.e. an attorney, a trial, full rights, etc.).
Ditto for those 8 U.S. "civilians" who the Germans snuck onto U.S. soil during WW2 to conduct sabotage.
In that case, they received a military tribunal inside FBI headquarters.
This is not to argue that these are ideal or even desired conditions, mind you. Rather, I'm merely pointing out that the rules have been this way since WW2. Bush didn't invent them in the last 3 years, and it is a major black eye on all of those who are complaining about these rules today...that they weren't protesting these rules decades ago.
To wait until the last minute to protest is imprudent, and leads to cries of political opportunism.
Because if you fall under suspicion for any number of reasons beyond your control, you can be taken apart by busybody bureaucrats. Remember, the disengenuous part. They need a warrant but it is not your father's warrant. Probable cause is not required. They just have to say you are part of a terrorism investigation.
Add to that the enemy combatant horror (not part of the patriot act or any other act, just Bush's idea) and innocent people are in great danger of spending decades in prison with no opportunity to challenge their imprisonment (not conviction-no trial).
And here I thought that conservatives wanted the government to obey the constitution all the time. I guess that there is no honorable party left but the Libertarians.
Refrain from misusing terms you neither understand, nor know the meaning of. Elsewise, you just PROVE what everyone suspects a bout you.
-----------------------------------
Awwwww jeeez, look what we have here folks: "Republicans come in many stripes."
Don't you have a log cabin to build skippy?
P.S. Funny how you get all high and mighty "a bout" what someone else understands...LOL
} And WHY bring up, by implication,homosexuals ? Is there something you're afraid to admit about yourself ? ;^)
Unlike you, I said that there are conservative and moderate and more lefty leaning liberal Republicans. Those are the facts! The GOP isn't comprised solely of Conservatives, with a smatteriing of faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar right fringers.
I am sick to death of these whining crybabies who call themselves conservatives yet ignore Bush's numerous conservative accomplishments, just so they can nitpick over one or two issues they don't like.
Let's hope we don't have to depend on unbalanced personalities like these to reelect Bush in Nov.
Good posts.
I don't see where Bush supposedly violating our rights in the war on terrorism is going to be a substantial issue with most of the electorate in this election.
I don't know ANYBODY who feels like we are now living in a police state due to the Patriot act, and those few who may feel like their personal rights were violated are far out numbered by those who are glad Bush is protecting us from terrorists. Period.
Libertarians aren't "honorable" because they aren't honest.
The term "enemy combatant" (and the treatment thereof) wasn't invented by Bush, and you know that full well because I have already educated you on that fact.
It was the Geneva Convention that defined that distinction between legal POW's from that of spies and sabotuers who wear no uniform and carry no military ID (e.g. dog tags) on the battlefield (which can include civilian infrastructure areas that are not related to open armed combat).
The Geneva Convention is *older* than George W. Bush, too...so it's a bit hard to accept that he suddenly had this "idea" for treating such spies and sabotuers as prescribed by the Geneva Convention.
In short, you and your fellow Libertarians routinely lie about such things even after you've been caught perpetrating such fabrications.
HINT: that's not "honorable."
Do the Bears sh*t in the woods?
LOL, Please don't tell my mom I'm on the computer!
Either use terms correctly, or refrain from using them.
When did you get made a mod? Get off your high horse.
And WHY bring up, by implication,homosexuals ? Is there something you're afraid to admit about yourself ? ;^) Your debate skills are awesome dude! What next? "I know you are but what am I?"
Unlike you, I said that there are conservative and moderate and more lefty leaning liberal Republicans. Don't let that chart I made of conservative and moderate and more lefty leaning liberal Republicans get in the way of your arguement.
Those are the facts! The GOP isn't comprised solely of Conservatives, with a smatteriing of faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar right fringers.
And apparently FR isn't either...
The "rino-ization" (I'm sure you'll love my use of that term-LOL) of the Republican party is a concern of many here. It doesn't mean us rightwing crazy "purists" will grab our rosaries and stay home and let a dem win, but we will voice our concerns.
BTW- I think its hilarious you call out people for being rightwing/conservative/faaaaaaaar right/purist here on FR. Maybe DU or Olympia Snow or John McCain has a better site for you to debate on...
Now, you're attempting to infer that I'm not a Conservative. Again, that isn't gonna work. LOL
And then, you suggest that I'd be happier on some other site. Well, permit me to return the favor...........go to LP or FU, where your kind is accepted. I've been on FR for well over 5 years and it suits me. :-)
Believe me we don't want his consequences. We have enough of them to deal with as it is. If he wins citizens need to be on top, and stay on top, of the FTAA treaty and immigration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.