Solomonster

No, not the "Eavesdropping" headline, head-spinner as that issue may be, but why are they writing and debating and voting for a law legalizing torture that is already constitutionally prohibited, and that they can't put into practice??? Sure, I understand it's an election year and the Rebulicans would rather appear to be jingoistic suicide-legislators who don't give a damn about how our soldiers and neighbors and friends are treated when captured by the enemy, than to appear "Soft on Terror", but is that really what this is all about? Could they really be thinking that when our soldiers are captured and gleefully tortured, that they'll be able to capitalize on their neighbor's painful deaths to do something, they don't know what yet but it's bound to be useful, due to Americans' outrage and brutally short memories as to who authorized the treatment of prisoners that way?

You'd think that professional legislators would at least have a PostIt with them outlining the US Constitution, which provides them the power to legislate and the rules on what they can legislate. Take, for instance, the following clause from Article VI:

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, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Constitution appears to elevate "all Treaties" to its own level, here, doesn't it? It seems pretty plain, to me. I don't think this is a complex issue.