Under the Bush Administration, "Torture," against a violent Non-Governmental Organization named Al-Queda, a non-signatory to the Geneva Convention on Torture, was considered legal.
Now, with the Obama Administration wishing to Prosecute the Bush Administration, I was pointed back to the Constitution itself.
As someone who reads Patriots by AJ Langguth every July 4th, I understand their worry of a Centralized Government, hence the Articles of Confederation. Earlier in this Blog, I asked Democrats if they wanted to go back to the Articles under President Bush -- after 2009, Democrats love, love, love the Electoral College and Expansion of Powers for a Democratic President. That is, what I believe, situational ethics. The Government is to be respected when Democrats are in power, according to the Democrats in the past 8 years.
The Founding fathers were smarter then any Modern Administration. Why? Look at Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3. Smart men. We should be humble before them
Let's break it down:
We go to Article I. It discusses the role of the Legislative Branch. Like all who are wary of Centralized Power, it helps to emphasize the Branch closest to the American People. The House runs every Two years, Senators run every subsequent 6 years. The people vote for this Branch Every Election. The Founders knew what they were doing.
Now, section 9: Power has limits. The Founders gave many powers to the Legislative (Check section 8) they did not give to the Executive. However, they limited the power of the Legislature as well. The Legislative Branch might be close to the American public, but they worked on keeping it away from Mob Rule. I'm still smiling.
Finally Clause 3: Obama Administration, please read this;
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
What does that mean?
A) Bill of Attainder: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial. (h/t: Tech law Journal) Simply put, if Congress writes a law that everyone with freckles should be jailed, the legislature is wrong.
B) Ex Post Facto: Term used to designate action taken to change the effect given to a set of circumstances. This action relates back to a prior time and places this new effect upon the same set of circumstances existing at that time. (h/t: Electric Law Library). Which means if alcohol is legal Monday and prohibited Friday, you do not go to jail for selling it on Monday through Thursday. The law changed on Friday.
That was my statement, now here are the questions:
2) What was the precedent for Article 1, Section 9, clause 3? I am looking for the Historical story, links are welcome.
3) Do Supranational agreements trump American laws? Why or why not?
4) What, if any, Constitutional laws were broken by the Bush Administration? Was there any legal or historical precedent?
5) Argue why or why not the Obama Administration should continue with the idea of Prosecutions. I'd like to see case references.
Court is in session.