US Opts Out of World Court

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wrong - secession is an implied power, you just disagree that it exists.

Secession has never been an implied power, but wackos thought it existed . Every time sucession argument came up (Hartford Convention, Civil War), the government indicated that it wouldn't be tolerated, and the courts agreed. Prove that sucession is implied power.

And yes, it was circular reasoning... The GC did envision a court system. That is the only way to enforce it. It was most definetly implied.

[David Floyd]

Prove that sucession is implied power.

Read the 10th Amendment, followed by Article 2.

The GC did envision a court system. That is the only way to enforce it. It was most definetly implied.

I disagree - but your position doesn't address the problem that Nuremburg was a trial by the victors who rejected defenses they didn't like, rather than a proper trial by ones peers.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Read the 10th Amendment, followed by Article 2.

10th Amendment

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.

And Article 2 deals with the President, and how to elect him.

The power of Federal governance has been designated to the United States, which means sucession is illegal. By agreeing to the federal governance of the US, the states have given away their rights to leave. Federal power has been delegated to the government.

Read Article 1: Section 10

Clause 1

Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility

The signing of the Constitution is a contract that the state is part of the government of the United States. Succession is imparing the obligation of that contract.

Clause 3

Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Speaks for itself.

I think the evidence is very clear that leaving the United States is illegal under the Constitution.

I disagree - but your position doesn't address the problem that Nuremburg was a trial by the victors who rejected defenses they didn't like, rather than a proper trial by ones peers.

Any trial of, say, treason at the end of a revolution or civil war is a trial by the victors who rejected defenses they didn't like.

[David Floyd]

I'm sorry I meant Article 1

Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility

This clause applies only to States. If a state secedes it is no longer a state.

The signing of the Constitution is a contract that the state is part of the government of the United States. Succession is imparing the obligation of that contract.

The states would never have agreed to the Constitution if they thought it was an eternally binding contract.

Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Once a state is no longer a state, this doesn't apply.

Secession is an implied 10th Amendment power, because nothing in the Constitution forbids the act of secession.

[David Floyd]

Any trial of, say, treason at the end of a revolution or civil war is a trial by the victors who rejected defenses they didn't like.

Yes, and such trials are really not moral either.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This clause applies only to States. If a state secedes it is no longer a state.

A state that attempts to succeed is breaking the Contract that it signed when it signed the Constitution.

The states would never have agreed to the Constitution if they thought it was an eternally binding contract.

Whoops... sucks to be them then. It is binding... every Constitution is.

Once a state is no longer a state, this doesn't apply.

But it can't no longer be a state, because it would break it's contract.

Secession is an implied 10th Amendment power, because nothing in the Constitution forbids the act of secession.

Article 1, Clause 10, makes succession totally illegal. Anyone that can't see that is making things up to fit their political ideology.

Yes, and such trials are really not moral either.

I really don't give a **** about your morals.

[David Floyd]

A state that attempts to succeed is breaking the Contract that it signed when it signed the Constitution.

And what part of that contract says it is eternal? Fact is, all it says is that states can do as they like as long as such an action is not expressly forbidden, which secesion certainly is not.

Whoops... sucks to be them then. It is binding... every Constitution is.

Why would states enter into a Constitution they were stuck with when they just got finished fighting a 8 year war to throw off a government they no longer wanted to be stuck with? It defies reason.

But it can't no longer be a state, because it would break it's contract.

You haven't adequately shown that the contract - if any, in the normal sense - could not be withdrawn from.

Article 1, Clause 10, makes succession totally illegal. Anyone that can't see that is making things up to fit their political ideology.

No, Article 1 Section 10 says there are certain things states can't do. Secession isn't one of them.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, I read it... and I have NO idea where you got your interpretation from.

Article 81, section 3[c]. Look it up and try to remember what I was responding to in my previous post.

Meaning that he is put in jail with some charges,

Good then they can strike out the odious Article and not give themselves easily abused power.

I'm sorry, but I see this as much more harmful than any piddling things that you don't agree with.

The hostages that would be used a bargaining chips for his release and those that would inevitably die in any rescue attempt might disagree.

And how does that violate the rule of law? It is still a fair trial.

I hope you can see how secret evidence can taint the very notion of a fair trial but perhaps you can explain how the articles I listed do not hurt the tribunal's credibility.

You would rather not have a trial at all, and be judge, jury, and executioner.

I would rather save lives and, on the plus side, I'd be following the law at the sametime given the fact that GWB recently changed the law regarding assassination.

Statements like that make me ashamed to be American at times.

Hey, at least I don't advocate randomly killing civilians like some Apolytoners.

[Ramo]

Look David, there's what Immy posted for the 10th Amendment:

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.

Allow me to spell this out: if a power is not explicitly delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, it is reserved for either the states or the people (since the states must have a Republican form of government). Therefore, there are no implied powers for the states.

As for secession, I have no idea why you're bringing that up. You do have a recollection of all of those Civil War debates, don't you?

You can't liberate dead people,

And you can't lock up the forces of the state KIA.

and in many cases those camps were worse than death.

Which does not mean that the liberation is worse than letting them continue to suffer in the camps.

Regardless, you can't punish someone for following orders to avoid death or harsh imprisonment - it's utterly immoral to put someone in a situation where they will be harshly punished no matter what.

Immoral according to you.

Nope, but if you believe Germans should have been you must also logically accept that Soviets should've as well, and probably even Americans.

Absolutely. And the Brits. And any other state that engages in war crimes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Article 81, section 3[c]. Look it up and try to remember what I was responding to in my previous post.

(c) In case of an acquittal, the accused shall be released immediately, subject to the following:

(i) Under exceptional circumstances, and having regard, inter alia, to the concrete risk of flight, the seriousness of the offence charged and the probability of success on appeal, the Trial Chamber, at the request of the Prosecutor, may maintain the detention of the person pending appeal;

(ii) A decision by the Trial Chamber under subparagraph (c) (i) may be appealed in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

So? If it is thought that the defendant might flee to try to avoid facing appeal, he can be kept in jail until the appeal is done. I'm not sure why this is so horrible to you.

Good then they can strike out the odious Article and not give themselves easily abused power.

Hey, you better watch out. Those black Sikorsky helicopters will get you .

I think it is a very important article and needed.

The hostages that would be used a bargaining chips for his release and those that would inevitably die in any rescue attempt might disagree.

So then no one should be tried because there might be hostages used as a bargining chip? I thought you were against negotiating with terrorists .

Please keep from refering to strawman arguments.

I hope you can see how secret evidence can taint the very notion of a fair trial but perhaps you can explain how the articles I listed do not hurt the tribunal's credibility.

It is used in Europe, and I think they have fair trials. And the credibility of the ICC isn't hurt at all by ANY article you have mentioned.

I would rather save lives and, on the plus side, I'd be following the law at the sametime given the fact that GWB recently changed the law regarding assassination.

Save lives instead of a trial. Yeah, I guess a police state would sound good to you

Hey, at least I don't advocate randomly killing civilians like some Apolytoners

I thought you supported Hiroshima as well .

And that is way better than backing basically backing a police state with no civil liberties such as trials.

[David Floyd]

Allow me to spell this out: if a power is not explicitly delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, it is reserved for either the states or the people (since the states must have a Republican form of government). Therefore, there are no implied powers for the states.

At this point we're simply arguing semantics.

As for secession, I have no idea why you're bringing that up. You do have a recollection of all of those Civil War debates, don't you?

Of course.

And you can't lock up the forces of the state KIA.

Eh? Sorry that came across as unclear to me...

Which does not mean that the liberation is worse than letting them continue to suffer in the camps.

No, but why should they suffer in the first place?

Immoral according to you.

I would think most people would agree as to it's immorality.

Absolutely. And the Brits. And any other state that engages in war crimes.

So you can agree Nuremburg was unfairly biased?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So? If it is thought that the defendant might flee to try to avoid facing appeal, he can be kept in jail until the appeal is done. I'm not sure why this is so horrible to you.

We are assuming that the defendant would be acquitted if the charges against him/her. On what legal basis do they claim the right to continue holding the person in detention?

It is used in Europe, and I think they have fair trials.

It is irrelevent if secret evidence is used in Europe. It is an odious burden for the defense that irreperablly taints the fairness of a trial verdict.

And the credibility of the ICC isn't hurt at all by ANY article you have mentioned.

Well consider it an exercise to help you prepare for the LSAT and explain to me why they don't call the credibility of a tribunal that claims to be a fair arbitor.

[Ramo]

At this point we're simply arguing semantics.

It was your fault.
You shouldn't have brought up implied state powers when the argument was clearly about implied federal powers.

Of course.

I thought I've stated my views regarding the Constitutionality of secession enough.

Eh? Sorry that came across as unclear to me...

The soldier could be killed in action if he isn't locked up...

No, but why should they suffer in the first place?

They shouldn't. But anyone who they kill don't deserve their fate, either.

I would think most people would agree as to it's immorality.

I don't think many people have problems with locking up/killing Hitler's henchmen....

So you can agree Nuremburg was unfairly biased?

In that there should've been a Nuremburg/Tokyo War crimes tribunal for just about all the players in the war, not just the losers, absolutely. In that the allied forces were unacceptably selective in their prosecution of German and Japanese forces, aboslutely.

[Imran Siddiqui]

We are assuming that the defendant would be acquitted if the charges against him/her. On what legal basis do they claim the right to continue holding the person in detention?

If there is sufficient belief (which is yes, subjective... but plenty of justice rulings happen to be) that the defendant might flee and try to avoid the appeal... they can keep him in detention until the appeal. That seems like a decent legal basis to me.

It is irrelevent if secret evidence is used in Europe. It is an odious burden for the defense that irreperablly taints the fairness of a trial verdict.

It taints the fairness TO YOU. It is an odious burden TO YOU. Not everyone is an American. Secret evidence is sometimes required, as Roland said, in the case of business secrets.

Well consider it an exercise to help you prepare for the LSAT and explain to me why they don't call the credibility of a tribunal that claims to be a fair arbitor.

I took the LSAT a while back... and scored very highly on it as well, thank you very much .

None of the articles you stated destroy the credibility of the ICC. Not even in the slightest. If they did, why would so many nations sign and ratify it?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If there is sufficient belief (which is yes, subjective... but plenty of justice rulings happen to be) that the defendant might flee and try to avoid the appeal... they can keep him in detention until the appeal.

On what legal basis do they claim the right to continue holding the person in detention muchless appeal his acquittal?

It taints the fairness TO YOU.

In a case from the 1950's, secret evidence was used to deny a WWII "war bride" the opportunity to come to the U.S. and join her husband. When eventually she was granted a hearing, the secret evidence was found to be worthless because the "confidential source" that offered it turned out to be a jilted former lover of her husband.

Secret evidence is sometimes required, as Roland said, in the case of business secrets.

I think that we are several step above trade secrets in order of importance to the defendent's life. If you can not put a person on trial before an international tribunal without allowing the defendent or his lawyer see the evidence against him, you shouldn't be putting him on trial.

I took the LSAT a while back... and scored very highly on it as well, thank you very much .

You must have done very well on the sections entitled Evading the Question and Logical Fallacies.