Stem Cell Research and Torture

[GernBlansten 10]

I would have no problem with a CIA interrogator using whatever means necessary (legal or illegal) to extract information from a prisoner if there were a true urgent situation (bomb about to go off, etc). No jury in the US would convict him for his actions.

 

Institutionalized torture, the likes the administration made legal, is not for those situations. Its for extracting information and confessions that are not for immediate action. Its for fishing expeditions. The prisoners who we are torturing have been in captivity for better than 3 years. They cannot possibly have any information that would require immediate action.

[SR540Beaver 116]

Hunt,

 

Stem cell research is pretty much in its infancy and we won't know what benefits it will produce without much further study. Torture on the other hand is as old as man and has been shown repeatedly to produce highly unreliable information that is given simply to stop the torture.

 

What if I know where the bomb is and you torture me to give you the info? I know the bomb will go off in an hour and you don't. I tell you a location that will take someone two hours to reach. Before they can get there, my objective is met. While someone is headed to the false location, do you continue to torture me because you fear I might not have given you the correct info? So now I give you another location. Can you rely on the second info over the first? Do you see the problem with using torture to obtain info? You can never be sure whether you are geting the real scoop or not and you must continue to torture repeatedly to see if the story will hold. But then of course, the person being tortured will again tell you what you want to hear in order hopefully, but doubtfully make it stop. Arguing torture against stem cell research is night and day.

 

The Scout,

 

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

What does "promote the general welfare" mean to you? Could it "include" finding and funding ways to keep citizens healthy and productive?

[TheScout 10]

Hunt,

 

The Preamble does not empower or limit the government in any way. It is only a statement of the rationale for creating the Constitution.

 

Article 1, Section 8 clearly spells out the only instances in which Congress can spend money and there is nothing that remotely mentions public health in any form.

 

Furthormore, the 10th Amendment,

 

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

 

Again clearly says all powers not granted to the federal government in the Constitution, like stem cell research funding, are left to state governments.

 

It seems many people think there is a good idea clause in the Constitution. Just because something is a good idea does not mean that it is constitutional.

[packsaddle 753]

Fascinating! Are you saying that NIH and CDC and FDA, etc. are unconstitutional? If congress has passed a law in which certain work is to be done, and it has been signed by the president, and funds have been appropriated, are you saying that work is unconstitutional?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[TheScout 10]

Yes if Congress makes appropriations that are contrary to the Constitution, which I believe federal publich health funding clearly is, it is unconstitutional.

 

Our federal government is one of limited enumerated powers. Just because something is a good idea does not make it constitutional.

[SR540Beaver 116]

But it IS a "good idea". I have found in life that good ideas are better to follow than.....I don't know.....say, bad ideas. Spending billions on devloping vaccines, medical treatments and disease eradication and allowing Americans to live healthy and productive lives that benefit themselves first and their society second seems like a spledid idea to ensure both financial and physical security. Surely one worthy of "the people's" representative government pursuing.

 

Spending our blood and fortune to depose a leader of another country whose own people won't fight for their own independence and liberty just seems like a really bad idea. Now if they had attacked us, that would be a different story.

 

Maybe it is just me, but one seems to make sense and the other doesn't. I guess we could discuss the pros and cons of different positions until the cows come home.

[TheScout 10]

If we resort to the idea that any good idea is constitutional, how do we know that some day the government will decide that abolishing freedom of speech is a good idea, or freedom of the press, or the right to bear arms.

 

Our written constitutional is what protects us from the government. If the people think it is a good idea to alter the powers of the government, they may approve a constitutional amendment.

[SR540Beaver 116]

TheScout,

 

I never said that "any" good idea is constitutional. My point is that the constitution does not address every single possibility or circumstance. The constitution is the document by which actions and decisions are weighed against. If we can invade another country, depose their leaders (elected or not) and set up a new government in our image on the primise that we are "providing for the common defense" of the US, then why can't we "promote the general welfare" by providing decent sanitation, clean water, good agricultural practices and medical research?

 

The general welfare of our nation is an ongoing and evolving process that has been part of what has made us into the great nation we are. Do you think it is in the best interest of the US to drop back to people dying from the flu and having life expectancies of 45?

 

How is providing for the common defense or general welfare unconstitutional? Do you think the founding fathers could think of each and every circumstance and address each item in the constitution or do you think they would design a document that provides a framework for making laws, running the government and ensuring basic liberty to it's citizens?

[TheScout 10]

"Do you think it is in the best interest of the US to drop back to people dying from the flu and having life expectancies of 45?"

 

Of course not, but after reading the Constitution, it seems clear the federal government does not have public health powers.

 

"How is providing for the common defense or general welfare unconstitutional?"

 

Because there is nothing in the the federal constitution which allows Congress the power to act under these blanket statements. These, found in the Preamble simply state the rationale for framing the Constitution.

 

I am not proposing that we do not do any of the things we are discussing, but according to our constitutional structure, different levels of government have different tasks.

 

The federal government is responsible for the conduct of foreign policy, creating post offices, making currency, among other things. The state governments have the reponsbility to protect the public heatlh of their citizens.

 

We are in an age when every looks to the federal government to solve all their problems. People do not seem to give a damn about our constitutional structures, which is a shame.

 

The framers knew they could not provide for every circumstance, that is why the left an amendment process. If we want our governing document to be different, we should change it, not just ignore it based on our whims.

 

 

[Hunt 11]

"Article 1, Section 8 clearly spells out the only instances in which Congress can spend money and there is nothing that remotely mentions public health in any form."

 

James Madison agreed with you, but Alexander Hamilton thought the General Welfare clause should have a broader interpretation. In 1936, the Supreme Court settled the matter, in favor of the Hamiltonians. Therefore, since the interpretations of the Supreme Court are the last word on the meaning of the Constitution unless the people choose to amend it, the Constitution does allow for appropriations for nonenumerated purposes that serve the General Welfare...like public health. You may wish that the law were different, but you can't really say that it is different, because the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the judicial power to make determinations of constitutional law.

[TheScout 10]

"Therefore, since the interpretations of the Supreme Court are the last word on the meaning of the Constitution"

 

"the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the judicial power to make determinations of constitutional law"

 

Not to start a new argument, but where exactly does it say the Supreme Court has the authority to exclusivly determine the constitutionality of anything.

 

It doesn't that is why thoroughout our history there have been disagreements over who should determine what is constitutional and what is not.

 

Every branch of government is co-equal is co-equal in its defense of the Constitution. The President has the duty to veto unconstitutional laws. Congress had the job not to pass them, and the Supreme Court has the duty to strike them down. The States as signatories to the Constitution have that right as well, as do the people from whom all the governments powers are granted.

[stlscouter 10]

At issue are two points that need to answered;

 

1. What and who decides wht consitutes "quality of life"?

 

2. How long do you think you are entitled to live?

[Hunt 11]

"Every branch of government is co-equal is co-equal in its defense of the Constitution. The President has the duty to veto unconstitutional laws. Congress had the job not to pass them, and the Supreme Court has the duty to strike them down. The States as signatories to the Constitution have that right as well, as do the people from whom all the governments powers are granted."

 

The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the authority to decide cases arising out of the Constitution. There are only two ways to overturn the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution: for the Constitution to be amended, or by a later iteration of the Supreme Court to reverse the decision. There is nothing else Congress or the President or the States can do about it. The Supreme Court thus has the power to say what the law IS at at any given time--if the people don't like it, they can amend the Constitution or try to elect a government that will replace the members of the Supreme Court with persons of a different viewpoint.

[TheScout 10]

No where is the Supreme Court granted the authority to strike down federal or state laws, let alone have the final say over constitutionality.

 

The argument that the Supreme Court alone is reponsible for the interpretation of the Constitution does not fit historical reality. Back in the day, Kentucky and Virginia used their authority as signatories to the Constitution to declare the Alien and Sedition Acts void as did South Carolina with several federal tariffs. Jackson asserted the Supreme Court was in error when he unilaterlly continued Indian Removal in defiance of it.

 

It is clear that every officer of the United States takes an equal oath to defend the Constitution.

[packsaddle 753]

So....the TVA is not consitutional? Other similar entities? The Federal Reserve? The abandonment of the gold standard wasn't constitutional? Since Nixon we are no longer trading with legal money?