About Me

Name: Conservative Posts
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Constitutional Ignorance

There's a lot to the US Constitution.  The men who wrote it were very smart in the way they worded it.  They had the foresight to include checks and balances, through the separation of powers among the various branches of government and defined what each branch can, and more importantly, can't do.

They also defined the form of government that will govern the United States.  If you were to ask 10 people what form of government that is, you'd most likely get 9 out of 10 that respond with "democratic, because we're a democracy".  They'd all be wrong.

We are not a democracy.  We're a republic.

Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."

So what does this mean?  According to Webster's, a republic is defined as "...a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president...a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government...a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law..." (emphasis added).

A democracy on the other hand is where the majority rules.  You can throw the checks and balances out the window in a democracy, unless of course that's what the majority wants.  

People can justify majority rule by thinking that what's good for the majority, must be good for the rest of the population.  They do this when talking about the electoral college, saying that it is a dated system, and a simple majority should take it's place.

What they don't consider is that only nine states contain over 50% of the US population.  If we abolished the electoral college, conceivably, those nine states could determine the result of a presidential election.  With the electoral college those states only have a total of 255 votes while 270 are needed to win an election.

There are a lot of things the government does these days that may not necessarily be constitutional, but is justified because it benefits the majority.  While it may be true that the majority benefits, it doesn't mean that the minority isn't suffering in one way or another because of it.

----------
 
Read more on ConservativePosts.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Politics of Torture

The eighth amendment to the US Constitution reads as follows: ”Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

Recently tactics used to extract information from terrorists has come under heavy scrutiny, as they are being considered torture.  If these tactics are indeed deemed to be torture, then they would be in violation of the eighth amendment’s “…nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” clause.

 ”Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” 

The United States is a country founded on principles, and those principles are what make the US a great nation.  Without them, we have nothing.  Those principles include the freedom of speech, and of religion, the right to bear arms, and the right against self incrimination.  The freedom from cruel and unusual punishments is also included in this list of rights the people retain from the government.

Some people might claim that the US Constitution only applies to US citizens, and therefore the torture was justified in interrogating foreign terrorists.  To them, I would question why they think the Constitution only applies to US citizens?  The Constitution simply lays out what the government can and cannot do.  Not who they can and cannot do something to.

Think about this: a foreign citizen comes to the US on vacation, and witnesses a robbery.  Unfamiliar with the laws of the United States, he is afraid to talk to police about what he saw, fearing retaliation from the robber.  Should the police be allowed to torture this individual so he provides them with information, just because he’s not an American?  I don’t think so.

Granted the severity of a robbery versus a terrorist attack is quite different.  Nonetheless, torturing someone to get information about either is still unconstitutional.

Don’t get me wrong.  I don’t see a problem with using interrogation techniques that are not considered “cruel and unusual” in order to extract information from terrorists.  Our intelligence agencies have been effectively interrogating people for years without having to torture them.

I’ve never been subjected to water boarding, which is one of the techniques in question, so I couldn’t say if it would be torture to go through.  Is it cruel and unusual?  I don’t know.  I’m not writing this to determine which techniques are torture and which are not.  I’m simply trying to get people to think about how the Constitution applies to this extreme situation, because its unhealthy to not question the government if they are overstepping their bounds.

After all, the government was designed to answer to the people, and not so that the people answer to the government.

----------
 
Read more on ConservativePosts.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »