Yes, offhand, I'd say look at Senate reservations to Genocide Convention, ICCPR, and the race discrimination convention.
At 04:31 PM 9/26/2003 -0400, you wrote:
The Convention Against Torture bans state use of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The Convention defines torture but does not define cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. As a condition of its consent to the Convention, the U.S. Senate, among other things, declared its understanding that cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment means conduct proscribed by the 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments. That is, if it is unconstitutional, it is cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
My question is factual. Is anyone aware of other treaties towards which the Senate has taken a similar approach? Put differently, has the Senate consented to other treaties on the condition that they proscribe only conduct that already is unconstitutional?
John T. Parry Associate Professor of Law University of Pittsburgh School of Law 3900 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15260 412-648-7006
-----Original Message----- From: Discussion list for con law professors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Curtis Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 1:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: John Bingham & the Story of American Liberty
It strikes me as odd that, in popular culture at least, we have a pantheon of constitutional "heroes"--George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, etc. These are the framers who (for strong political reasons) gave us a constitution that protected the slave trade until 1808, that provided for rendition of fugitive slaves, that increased the vote of the slave sections of the nation by letting them count 3/5ths of their slaves, etc. In contrast, most know nothing about the framers of the post Civil War Amendments--notably the 14th--that were designed to provide a "new birth of freedom." I took a poll of lawyers attending a North Carolina seminar put on by the Constitutional Law section of the NC Bar. Virtually everyone had heard of Madison, Hamilton and Jay. Only one person had heard of Bingham & that was because his grandparents lived in Cadiz Ohio and he had seen the Bingham memorial. No one had heard of Jacob Howard.
My recent article, John Bingham and the Story of American Liberty reflects on this anomaly and tells something about what Bingham stood for. If you would like a reprint please contact me off list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] & send me your mailing address.
Michael Kent Curtis
Sanford Levinson wrote:
> First, some shameless self-promotion: > > Levinson: Why I Did Not Sign the Constitution > http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030923_levinson.html > > This provoked the following from Prof. Tung Yin of the University of > Iowa Law School: > > .... You note one of the structural deficiencies of the Constitution > as being: > > . . . the Constitution's provision for rigidly fixed terms of > presidential office - which means that we can be saddled with patently > deficient presidents until their time in office mercifully expires. > > At the same time, on the list-serv, and indeed, even in the column, > you criticize the California recall process. Now, I realize that many > of your objections relate to the perceived problem of having the > winner in part 2 take office while a lower percentage of votes than > Gray Davis garners to keep his office -- in other words, to the way > that the recall takes place, as opposed to the recall itself. These > objections could be dealt with through a ranked voting (or single > transferrable vote) system or Steve Bram's approval voting. > > But does this mean that you support the principle of allowing voters > to recall political leaders ahead of the conclusion of their terms in > office? > __________________________________________ > > I responded as follows: > > Yes, you are right: I'm not opposed to recalls per se. My view that > the California procedure is "lunatic" relates to the mode by which the > successor governor is selected. I also tend to support legislative > votes of no-confidence (by, say, a 2/3 vote) over a popular > referendum.
Diane Marie Amann Professor of Law University of California, Davis, School of Law Martin Luther King, Jr. Hall 400 Mrak Hall Drive Davis, California 95616 USA ph. 530.754.9099 fax: 530.752.4704 eml: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
