Turn in your neighbor for a $1000..

[Xizorz]

The constitution was also originally written a long time ago, and while a gross departure is not OK, interpretation (in fact the sole purpose of the Supreme Court) certainly is.

Well, that's a center of an entirely different debate.

Interpretation has to do with using the same text in different contexts (the original one, modern, or whatever the hell you can get to fit). What iniliara is doing is refusing to look at any context at all.

[Aus]

Of course, you have your Roe v Wade and the anti death-penalty crowd and such that completely ignore any sense of this, but that's another discussion.

That was the most ridiculous statement in this thread so far, and that's saying something!

What, that those groups of people have no reason or interest in looking at the original intent of the document or the people who wrote it?

They admit to it; it's called their Living Constitution theory.

The concept of rules or governments controlled by 200 year old ideas that aren't updated for modern times is the ridiculous part. The spirit of the law is not always going to be perfectly outlined in the actual text of it, so it's up to contemporary members of this society to make those interpretations.

There's no reason to look at the constitution or any amendments as unchangeable tenets of our society or culture. In time, any rules typically need to be altered or updated to keep pace with the people they govern. The gun control debate is a great example of this: the constitution states that it is legal and right to own a licensed firearm, but when that was written, it was obviously a very different time with a very different social atmosphere. That isn't to say guns should or shouldn't be legal, but you have to be willing to assess a new situation fairly instead of applying potentially outdated principals to it.

The pro-choice / anti capital punishment issues are interesting to me as well because you mention they support some concept of an updateable constitution, which is essentially what I'm talking about, though neither of those topics are really even the subject of any part of the constitution (if I'm wrong, correct me, it's been a few years since American History) in any direct manner (If someone starts the abortion debate I'll just kill you :( )

I realize I've departed from the initial subject of your comment, and to be honest I just don't want to read the middle 3 pages of this thread, so just consider that my post is response to what I quoted, not anything else pertaining the discussion thus far.

[Xizorz]

That was the most ridiculous statement in this thread so far, and that's saying something!

What, that those groups of people have no reason or interest in looking at the original intent of the document or the people who wrote it?

They admit to it; it's called their Living Constitution theory.

The concept of rules or governments controlled by 200 year old ideas that aren't updated for modern times is the ridiculous part. The spirit of the law is not always going to be perfectly outlined in the actual text of it, so it's up to contemporary members of this society to make those interpretations.

There's no reason to look at the constitution or any amendments as unchangeable tenets of our society or culture. In time, any rules typically need to be altered or updated to keep pace with the people they govern. The gun control debate is a great example of this: the constitution states that it is legal and right to own a licensed firearm, but when that was written, it was obviously a very different time with a very different social atmosphere. That isn't to say guns should or shouldn't be legal, but you have to be willing to assess a new situation fairly instead of applying potentially outdated principals to it.

The pro-choice / anti capital punishment issues are interesting to me as well because you mention they support some concept of an updateable constitution, which is essentially what I'm talking about, though neither of those topics are really even the subject of any part of the constitution (if I'm wrong, correct me, it's been a few years since American History) in any direct manner (If someone starts the abortion debate I'll just kill you :( )

I realize I've departed from the initial subject of your comment, and to be honest I just don't want to read the middle 3 pages of this thread, so just consider that my post is response to what I quoted, not anything else pertaining the discussion thus far.

I'm not going to really comment on the first half, as that's completely a matter of opinion, but:


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.



A document which mentions the existence of a capital crime and the deprivation of life clearly acknowledges that the death penalty can exist, should states choose to use it, in some capacity. Despite clear text, the death penalty was outlawed in all cases in the 70s due to 'evolving standards of decency'.

And that's the problem.

[Aus]

I don't see that as a problem at all, actually. I think the death penalty is an archaic and barbaric practice. As well, it's as you said, the death penalty CAN exist, it isn't mandated, and so the decision to impose a moratorium is well within the rights of the decision makers.

Whether or not I'm right or you are, the fact remains that the constitution simply has to be update-able or we're eventually left with rules that aren't relevant any longer. The basis of most Roman law (and thus, our laws) was Hammurabi's Code, but I think it can be agreed that those laws left something to be desired. Over time, they essentially developed into the laws we use today, but they obviously required some alterations.

[Xizorz]

I don't see that as a problem at all, actually. I think the death penalty is an archaic and barbaric practice. As well, it's as you said, the death penalty CAN exist, it isn't mandated, and so the decision to impose a moratorium is well within the rights of the decision makers.

Whether or not I'm right or you are, the fact remains that the constitution simply has to be update-able or we're eventually left with rules that aren't relevant any longer. The basis of most Roman law (and thus, our laws) was Hammurabi's Code, but I think it can be agreed that those laws left something to be desired. Over time, they essentially developed into the laws we use today, but they obviously required some alterations.

I think you misunderstand the moratorium. It wasn't implemented by decision makers (ie the elected branches of government); it was implemented by the courts on the grounds that it was 'cruel and unusual', which makes no sense given the text i linked above.

[Aus]

Well, all I meant was that the people with the authority to impose the moratorium (obviously) did. As well, I don't see how the quote you posted defines what "cruel" or "unusual" actually is, and so to say that it in some way conflicts with a moratorium on that basis seems counterintuitive.

[Xizorz]

Well, all I meant was that the people with the authority to impose the moratorium (obviously) did. As well, I don't see how the quote you posted defines what "cruel" or "unusual" actually is, and so to say that it in some way conflicts with a moratorium on that basis seems counterintuitive.

It doesn't define what it is; it defines what it is not.

A constitution which explicitly allows the possibility of the death penalty in the 5th amendment can't ban it in the 8th amendment at the same time.

[Fabalous]

Like jailing them for life in overcrowded shithole 'correction facilities' located in shitty regions of the US is any more humane than executing them by modern means... give me a break. I'd rather the insane fucks like Manson be executed with a dull rusty butter knife then sit in jail waiting for a shot at parole. The only reasons why executions cost more than a life sentence is due to drawn out bullshit legal procedures.

I wouldn't mind an expediting process that throws the sick fucks in which there is no doubt they are guilty to the front of the line. Some of those people in those facilities are just beyond redemption and social reintegration - and i dont mean they are just 'out of the loop' i mean they are dangerous and fucking sick.

[Orim]

To be frank, the supreme court has way, way too much power because of the 'interpretation' that has become common place in the past century

What do you mean when you say "power"? According to Wiki, Hobbes thought power was a man's "present means to obtain some future apparent good." Nietzsche thought that power was the dominion over other human beings. Foucault thought power was actions upon others' actions in order to interfere. Dictionary.com defines power as the "ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something."

By any of those definitions, the Supreme Court is *not* powerful. This becomes even more evident when you consider the extent of Congress and the President's power.

1. The Supreme Court has no army, has no power of the purse, has no other way to convince the other branches of the government to obey except by its institutional prestige.

2. The Supreme Court can only hear cases and controversies (i.e. the Court will not give advisory opinions) and will not adjudicate "political questions" (which basically means that it some issues are committed to the "unreviewable discretion of the political branches.") Moreso, throughout history, the Court has adopted and evolved the justiciability doctrine, which further limits the types of case it can hear. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justiciability)

3. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be altered by Congress. (And so on...)

It's a good thing our constitution states otherwise. Also, driving is not a right, it's a privilege.

This is correct, but it is important to note that the freedom of movement *is* a (fundamental) right.

Also, with regard to the 2nd Amendment discussion: the Supreme Court has never incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the States. This means that the provision only applies against the federal government. That said, it is quite possible that the Supreme Court will, in the future, incorporate it against the States, especially since there are circuit court splits (it's incorporated against States in the 9th Circuit but not the 2nd and 7th.)

Additionally, there are certainly other theses about the 2nd Amendment than the ones proposed here. For example, Saul Cornell argues that "the right to bear arms [is] neither an individual nor a collective right, but [a] civic right - an obligation citizens owed to the state to arm themselves so that they could participate in a well-regulated militia."

Disclosure: I'm as anti-gun as you can get (in inner cities at least; I'm all for guns in rural areas), but guns were never a family heirloom in my family and I have never been a victim of a crime where a gun could have possibly helped me.

Further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporat ... _Rights%29
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/020.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Well-Regulated-Mi ... 966&sr=8-1

[Orim]

The only reasons why executions cost more than a life sentence is due to drawn out bullshit legal procedures.

Also known as due process, which also known as the 5th and 14th Amendments.

[Orim]

A document which mentions the existence of a capital crime and the deprivation of life clearly acknowledges that the death penalty can exist, should states choose to use it, in some capacity. Despite clear text, the death penalty was outlawed in all cases in the 70s due to 'evolving standards of decency'.

So your argument is this:
The Constitution implicitly authorizes the death penalty because of the text of the 5th and 14th Amendments. Therefore, this implicit authorization means that the Court cannot place a moratorium on the death penalty, even if the moratorium is to prevent executions where the application of the death sentence was arbitrary. But this still leads to a contradiction -- the State can't punish people in a "cruel and unusual" way, and the arbitrary application of the death penalty is clearly within the meaning of "cruel and unusual."

Anyways, the case you are referring to is Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S. 238 (1972). In response to this case, almost 40 states revised their death penalty laws. The Supreme Court later ruled that these revisions were constitutional in Gregg v. Georgia 428 U.S. 152 (1976), and other cases.

I suggest reading the actual opinions in those cases.

[Fabalous]

The only reasons why executions cost more than a life sentence is due to drawn out bullshit legal procedures.

Also known as due process, which also known as the 5th and 14th Amendments.

And then some. I'm talking about the final nail in the coffin after the guys millionth appeal and conviction: facilities, the papers legalizing the execution - remember writing some sort of paper where the cost of getting the paper to kill the sob and physical process of executing the individual was in the hundreds of thousands, executioner's pay.. ect ect.

[Mirkendargen]

I'd believe it. Just imagine the number of people involved in that, and the salaries involved vs. the number of deathrow inmates. Granted, a lot of those people's SOLE job probably isn't dealing with executions and the work involved, but you can think of the percent of their time.

[Xerred]

Concerning death row, my issue isn't so much that there aren't crimes that deserve the death penalty, its that ultimately its a punishment that is irreversible. Consider DNA evidence has exonerated people off death row and consider that people who ultimately arrive at guilty verdicts are falliable. Shady evidence, racial bias, and the inherent flaws of human recollection all could play a role. The number of people exonerated from death row is in over one hundred. Even a fraction of that is not an insignificant number of people who were destined to die for something they didn't do. Can you accept a judgment which can be imperfect and incorrect to determine whether someone should die or do you feel good enough that its right most of the time?

I'd feel better about the death penalty if there were a perfect system where the verdict is guaranteed to be correct, but in reality no such system can exist and I feel that the possibility of innocent people being executed outweighs the need the punish the guilty ones.

[Aus]

That's actually exactly how I feel about it!