This Is Not A Democracy, It's A Republic........
YAAAAAAY!!!
Well - out of the last 5 decisions they got ONE right!
Good news! I'm gonna wait for some analysis of the opinion before I'm really satisfied.
I went over to the DU and was surprised to see many DUer's agreeing with the Supreme Court. Of course there were a few who thought it was all a plot to enrich the gun industry.
Well I'll cast a down point:
5-4......Uhmm... lets try 9-0...it's the second amendment! 5-4 Jesus left!
BTW: this SCOTUS thing!!! Makes me think of the nutsack! Dunno why?
...and astonishingly, they're a different four morons to the ones who hadn't read the constitution in the last four verdicts.
I think SCOTUS is batting five for five, including this one.
http://rolandhulme.blogspot.com/...-and-
glory.html
That's because you're a Brit and don't understand that out of the last 5 decisions, 4 were not even under their juristiction. Well, perhaps that dealth penalty one was - but I think they overreached their power by countermanding a state's right to dispense justice.
The one today was clearly under their jurisdiction - and I'm with Dave, it should have been a 9-0 decision. One guy made the difference between civil liberty vs anarchy. Because I think anarchy would have been the result had it gone the other way.
We now have a right to own guns, isn’t that special?!?!
It seems to me that right has been in effect ever since the 2nd amendment was written. Many anti-gun lobbies have tried their best to interpret it otherwise, and constitutional scholars have been trying to tell them that the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution was exactly what is read, word for word, because when you get right down to it, we ARE a militia if this nation comes under attack.
In 1941, when Japan attacked the U.S. Naval forces at Pearl Harbor, there was a major reason they attacked where they did and not on the west coast of this nation. They didn’t fear our military, they feared the ARMED U.S. citizen and the insurgency that they were certain they would face.
We, The People are the very reason that no foreign power has even tried to invade this nation, always have been, always will be, by God, lets keep it that way..
All I can tell you fine folks is this, if you have em, secure em, if you don’t have em, you’d be well advised to buy a few, become highly proficient in their use and invest in precious metals, brass, copper, lead, things of that nature..
You never know when they might change their minds..
Yikes, I think I agree with Texas Fred!
KInd of sounds like amnesty for all the thugs already packing heat in DC. 
Seriously, though, we can expect crime to go down in DC now, and damage control from the dems when that happens. Something incoherent like "it may seem like the crime rate is down, but it's been replaced with lower paying jobs."
Well Alan it just gives people BACK their right to have a gun in their home. It does nothing to allow them to carry it outside their home.
"Scrotus"
lol Dave
"...SoooOOOoooo you still have 4 morons on the SCOTUS who clearly haven't read the constitution lately..."
No Still five asshats, Kennedy was afraid of them bible thumpin', gun totin' rednecks from Pennsylvania.
And yes, Srotus is correct. Limiting capital punishment to murder is first degree BS.
Rednecks one and all.
Why is libdouché so intolerant of rednecks? I thought "progressives" were supposed to be the tolerant ones.
I guess he thinks Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito are rednecks; I'd mention Thomas, but I'm pretty sure libdouché thinks he's an Uncle Tom.
Bigot.
Well if I lived in the U.S.A I would be jumping for joy... BUT:
Here in the Peoples Republic of California our gun laws are unconstitutional or so close it scares it to death but NO challenges on the COUNTRY LEVEL that were changed.
The DC gun grabbers will just switch to some ridiculous type of waiting period along with a signed contract to never have it loaded.. Get em quick, secure em quicker and get prepared to use them Quickest.
Well the libs are jumping on the "reasonable restriction" part of the decision and are thinking of every kind of "reasonable restriction" such as a mental health exam; a separate training course for each and every style of weapon you possess; registration fees; and liability insurance are just a few of the "reasonable restrictions" they are coming up with this morning.
I'm sure they'll have another dozen by noon. So, what they intend is to price it out of the average person's ability to pay.
That's because you're a Brit and don't understand that out of the last 5 decisions, 4 were not even under their juristiction.
So what's my excuse? Unbridled stupidity?
Boumediene was right (not without my concerns). Kennedy v Louisiana was right although I couldn't stand the reasoning and Alito's dissent blew holes in the majority opinion. Heller was right. I'm not sure which other cases we are discussing here (Exxon?).
For what it's worth, there are nine judges on the court who tend to deviate from the text of the Constitution when it suits them. Judicial conservatives are unreconstructed New Deal jurisprudes. They are not, nor ever will be, jurists that will defend the natural rights tradition of the Constitution because defending rights not enumerated in the Constitution is seen as "inventing new rights", "judicial activism" and some other such nonsense.
While in many ways they are significantly better than their liberal counterparts, it hardly follows that they are faithful to the Constitution.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
pape...tract_id=880112
An originalist vs. a hero amongst legal conservatives.
So what's my excuse? Unbridled stupidity? CC
While I appreciate your knowledge on the fine points of the law, my only issue with you is you refuse to acknowledge that this court (along with the other federal courts) are overstepping their designated role with regards to the separation of powers.
I pretty much don't think any of them are particularly originalists. For them to even consider listening to the eco-nutz lawsuit regarding the border was wrong. The supremes have no business touching on issues that belong under the jurisdiction of the executive (the Gitmo case) or the legislature (the immigration case and the border case).
That was not a quote from CC, wit. Far from it.
I got my H&K USP .40 out right after the announcement. It is nice and clean, has a fresh coat of oil and is hanging under my left arm at this very moment while I type this at work! 
You see here in Texas, we not only own them, we carry them and the most important thing is we will use them, thus the decreasing violent and personal crime ratese since we passed our concealed handgun laws.
You're right, CC! My bad! My comment was directed at ECL (formerly known as Don Geekoni).
We here in Virginia are pretty 2nd Amendment oriented too! Our state supremes recently struck down every gun restriction in the state. We can carry out in the open; conceal and carry without the permit; we can pretty much do as we please and so far the streets haven't ran with blood. Just the opposite, in fact. DC is just across the river and none of their criminals DARE to cross over into our territory.
An Armed Society Is A Polite Society.
"An Armed Society Is A Polite Society."
You said it all in seven words. Why is it that Liberals and Libertarians just can't seem to grasp this simple concept?
There's a reason why I don't enter a UFC Octagon fight: I'd be 'outgunned'. For the same reason, criminals tend to behave in VA and TX: they are likely outgunned as well.
Conversely, CA and NY get to deal with a criminal element that runs amuck because the laws are on their side, not the side of the citizen. It is still an uphill climb; but SCOTUS did put air in our tires.
Wy is it that Liberals and Libertarians just can't seem to grasp this simple concept?
I have never, ever, spoken out against the 2nd Amendment nor would I. The libertarians you may find against this ruling are amongst the more radical elements and hardly represent the group at large.
It is also counterintuitive to think that libertarians would hold individualist views and them somehow cast those aside on one of the most fundamental natural rights of all, self defense. No one is more able and more incentivized to protect our own liberties than ourselves, especially in a situation where self defense may require the use of lethal force.
While it is not illegitimate for states to regulate rightful conduct (and thereby place some regulations or limitations on gun ownership), our views of what is permissable is narrow.
Last, it wasn't the NRA that was most instrumental in bringing this case to the Supreme Court. That distinction belongs to individuals at The Cato Institute and The Institute for Justice, a libertarian think tank and a libertarian legal interest group.
"my only issue with you is you refuse to acknowledge that this court (along with the other federal courts) are overstepping their designated role with regards to the separation of powers".
I struggle to see how, Wit. SCOTUS's job, among other things, is to check Executive.
Witness,
You could probably make a persuasive argument in the child rape case that the SCOTUS did not belong, as this sort of criminal law should be left to the states. It will probably be better-reasoned than Justice Kennedy's opinion where he finds his way to the "national consensus" he wants and rules accordingly (for what it's worth, I do think the Court was wrong in the death penalty case involving 16 or 17-year olds).
I was also a little ambivalent about the cases that were brought into the federal courts involving the Terrorist Surveillance Program. As much as I believed that the President had no legal authority to violate a duly enacted statute that he is constitutionally obligated to execute, I did not see how the people who brought the case to the courts had legal standing to do so (it would have been like me bringing the case). I think the court eventually got it right and tossed it but I'm not sure.
A Court can have jurisdiction to hear a case and screw it up royally. I don't see that as a violation of the separation of powers, just a bad decision that may or may not have the sorts of consequences that are predicted when these decisions are handed down.
I struggle to see how, Wit. SCOTUS's job, among other things, is to check Executive.
kri
Sorry - you couldn't be more wrong! War is in the hands of the executive and only the executive branch. This court is trying to run the war through the overreach of it's power.
This court is also taking what is in the hands of the legislative branch of government - congress - as in matters of immigration and border security.
This is why I've been saying, "hey! lets just get rid of the other two branches as we have a poliburo now! yippee!
And just yesterday, 4 of these assholes thought it was just fine to do away with our 2nd amendment rights! They've already decided to do away with our property rights - rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution - which they've never read apparently.
You and I will never agree on this. Please let us agree to disagree!
Well, ECL - there was a time when a court would refuse to hear a case on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction in the case. I guess those days are long gone.
Witness, that's fine by me.
ECL, are you saying that you are ok with a court hearing a case over which it has no legal jurisdiction?
I sincerely hope that is not what you meant.
Wit, the point you persist in ignoring is that jurisdiction is a legitimate question for the court to consider. Courts consider whether they have jurisdiction every damn day.
On of the issues that the most recent Gitmo case turned was jurisdiction: does the writ run to Gitmo.
Sorry you didn't like the answer. Not liking a judgment and that judgment being beyond the scope of the Court's powers are two different matters.
and while I'm on a roll: The ultimate punishment should be reserved for the ultimate crime - a life for a life.
This isn't sharia. Death penalty for adultry anyone?
Oh kris, put the straw man back in your closet. You are smart enough to know the difference between adultery committed by two consenting adults, and an adult male in the position of authority (step father of an 8 year old child), raping and sodomizing the child. Not to mention the step father had prior convictions for the same offense and is a registered sex offender. That is a silly argument indeed.
Their ruling was that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment for the child rapist. How ironic and pathetic is that?!
This is clearly a case of the 'idiots in black' standing so close to the tree they missed the entire forest!
it's no strawman - you're happy for a rapist to get the chair where do you say it should end?
“…you're happy for a rapist to get the chair…?”
In some circumstances, YES!
Granted, one doesn't say 'all rapists' get the chair anymore than one says 'all murderers' get the chair. Our laws provide a judge the opportunity to make that decision after a jury of peers recommend the death penalty, followed by 20 years of appeals; however, to say NO rapists, no matter who the victim is or how heinous the crime gets the chair is horrific and utterly stupid.
Sorry, but that was a lame brained ruling that needs to be challenged and overturned in spite of stare decisis.
This is not Sharia law, that is your strawman I referred to.
Blacks Law Dictionary (American) defines staw man thus: -
"a tenuous and exaggerated counterargument that an advocate puts forward for the sole purpose of disproving it"
I've clearly and precisely said life sanction for taking a life should be the limit. I asked where does it end. You seem to think the boundary should be amorphous. Asking you where is boundary should end is not a straw man argument, it's merely seeking clarification.
I think you would struggle to find a jurisdiction outside of China or Iraq where a non-capital offense attracts a capital punishment. As for US states? You'd have an even bigger mountain to climb.
Kris, when you insinuate I am advocating sharia law, that in itself is a straw man because you KNOW I am not.
I cannot believe you of all people would argue against capital punishment for men who have raped and tortured young children, and then left their victims alive to live with the destruction wreaked upon their minds and bodies.
I understand you as an attorney believe that because you have studied law for four years, you somehow know more about life and have a stronger sense of morality than the rest of us. But you have overlooked the fact that our constitution is based on moral principles that do not change at the whim of the populous. That is why our framers used a document that has stood the test of time to create the fundamentals for the rule of law; the bible.
The Law is just and moral. What we have seen in this ruling is corrupt people corrupting the law. The ruling doesn't make the law right; it only makes the law corrupt.
Finally, Yes, in some instances of child rape (not all), just as in some cases of murder (not all), I completely believe the criminals deserve capital punishment. If that motivates you to call me a Radical Islamic advocating sharia law, perhaps you should find another profession to pursue.
Sorry Kris - I'm with Gawfer, and even ECL is on board with this one. Some of these predatory crimes are so heinous that the citizens of at least Louisianna decided that such crimes are deserving of the death penalty. It was on ther ballot - they voted for it and the jury on this particular case decided that this indivdual was deserving of this sentence. This is a States Right Decision.
The supremes have decided - just like in Roe vs Wade - that they knew better than the states.
This is crap - the whole point of the Republic was one of States Rights and the populace could vote with its feet.
Gawfer is right - you are posing a strawman argument.
While I like you very much, I believe you have lived in a socialist country for so long that you have drank of the socialist koolaid and your thinking has become contaminated.
I will also point out that you seem to love the supremes and our other activist courts when they rule in a way that you favor. Most of those rulings are of the social activist slant and have nothing to do with the Constitutions of either this country or the states that these ruling apply.
Also, you have never once addressed my point of the overreaching of the separation of powers.
I guess my point would be that you are less the conservative that you have portrayed yourself to be and more of the social reformast (socialist) that our courts are leaning towards.
Just sayin.............
You know, I’m sick of other countries having the influence they seem to have over our courts today. What the hell does Europe have to offer the freakin world?
I once wrote a story about a Human Rights group that was going to sue Gitmo because of human rights issues dealing with the health of the detainees.
Screw that crap – the issue was one of dietary matters. The problem was one of OVER feeding. One asshat terrorist gained about 190 lbs because the military offered a variety of options at mealtimes. These dorks actually couldn’t understand that they should choose a meal. Instead, they chose to eat EVERYTHING! So – guess what? They gained weight. The human rights council decided this was ABUSE!!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...6100401669.html
And you people wonder why I hate libs?????
To think that the wording of the second amendment to the constitution is simply understood is rubbish, and those who claim themselves as "originalists," such as Justice Scalia, are unfathomably arrogant.
Here is the exact wording of the second amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Thus, as understood by those that believe this amendment gives American citizens the right to bear personal arms, the operative clause of the sentence, being "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," comes AFTER the given example of the operative clause.
Nowhere else in the constitution did the absolutely brilliant authors of the constitution make this decision, which is also almost never made by any other person who correctly speaks the English language.
The second amendment give the country the right to assemble an armed militia to protect itself, and it does not guarantee any such right to individuals.
Take a course on the structure of American English, and read the rest of the Constitution. It's all there, and all easily understood.
"To think that the wording of the second amendment to the constitution is simply understood is rubbish"
"It's all there, and all easily understood."
Make up your mind, Bob.
"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
This couldn't be any clearer. The 2nd Amendment was intended to ensure the citizenry would always have the means to protect itself against the worst threat of all, government ... and if need be, take the reins back by force. An unarmed populace might as well be a lamb awaiting slaughter. If they wanted people to maintain arms solely for the purpose of maintaining a militia they would have said so. Instead, they went out of their way to specify "the people" have "the right" to "keep and bear arms".
The wording was intentionally unambiguous. So clearly in fact that the gymnastics people go thru to prove otherwise often defeats their own arguments.
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450
I was gonna hammer ol' Bob, but you pretty much destroyed him with his own double talk, Henry.
Nuff said.
I loathe the brain-dead argument that the framers only intended people to have guns in such bodies as the National Guard. They had just fought a war with an enemy that had tried to disarm them and they never wanted the possibility of government being able to disarm the population to occur again.
Ever wonder why the Japanese hit Pearl Harbor rather than the west coast? Clearly they didn't fear our military - but they did fear an armed civilian populace......
"I loathe the brain-dead argument that the framers only intended people to have guns in such bodies as the National Guard."
No kidding. Who would protect people from the National Guard if people couldn't protect themselves or fight back?
Man ... there are people and organizations out there just drooling at the thought of us being disarmed.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/
home...icle1351637.ece
right. The guy can get the chair. I'll flip the switch.
As for Wit and my never answering her suggestion that SCOTUS over-reaches their powers, have you not read anything I've posted?
Please don't accuse me of being a koolaid drinker / socialist because I don't happen to agree with your analysis.
My view is that the US is a constitutional republic. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. The constitution contains general principles.
One of the roles of SCOTUS is to deal with questions of how the constitution applies to the facts of a given case. It is SCOTUS's job to decide questions of Habeas and whether a punishment by the state is "cruel and unusal".
I regret simple points get lost in the emotion of your dismay at the conclusions SCOTUS reach.
"I understand you as an attorney believe that because you have studied law for four years, you somehow know more about life and have a stronger sense of morality than the rest of us."
Bloody hell people. Thanks for putting words into my mouth.
I make no mention of morality. I've been talking about the law. I suppose I do believe an intensive education and practice in the subject give me a bit of confidence that I just might have a clue.
Never once have you or Wit pull any of mine or ECL's arguments apart on the basis of the law. You've both gone straight for the ad hom. "you think you're smarter/your a socialist". If you've got an legal argument that supports your view, let's hear it now.
I'll help you along:
a) the Bible is not the Rule of Law. While it is correct that the Christian religion and culture is a source of law, you overstate the case. About half of the Framers were members of Middle Temple and the other Inns of Court. They did not dream the Constitution out of the ether. If you woud bother to read the transcripts of the submissions of counsel in Boudemine or Heller, you will learn for yourself the role English Law played and continues to play in understanding the Constitution;
b)There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding with your view on states' rights and democracy. You will be the first to explain that we live in a Republic rather than a democracy and probably quote Ben Franklin re "mob rule" along the way. Yet inexplicably, you do not see that SCOTUS can pass judgment that a law or particular exercise of Executive power is unconstitutional. Marbury v Madison continues to be good law and makes perfect sense.
I struggle to see how any of the above is "socialist" or "arrogant".
It's called an education. That's open to anyone to get.
Gee - sorry, Kris. I guess I've just let my little emotions get in the way of such decisions as the Keelo decision which effectively tossed the Bill of Rights granting we the people the right to property ownership.
I guess I get a little peeved by them upholding McCain/ Feingold which effectively cancelled the 1st Amendment rights of people to express their political views right before an election.
I guess I'm bothered when a court allows illegal immigrants the same rights of US citizens which is the juristiction of congress.
I guess it annoys me that during the prosecution of a war the court has granted US citizen rights upon foreign nationals (who were already granted Geneva Convention rights - rights they should never have been granted under the Geneva Convention) to challenge their detainee status in US courts when they were captured in a foreign country fighting and killing our troops. The prosecution of a War is the jurisdiction of the Executive branch.
All these are clearly outlined in the Constitution and the court has decided it knows better than the legislative and executive branches of our government.
So again - why bother having the other two branches when we now have a clear Oligarchy which has declared they are now in charge.
Why anybody can even remotely argue the merits that either legislating or ruling by judicial fiat the prosecution of a war is a formula for winning said war is just totally bemusing to me.
Our enemies are winning through our courts. The left - which can't get their socialist candidates elected and their marxist programs passed through the ballots now have the courts putting these tenents into place through the judicial fiat of the poliburo five and other activist federals courts.
The future of the US is tenuous at best with these sorts of decisions.
Ad hom my ass - you really DO sound arrogant. Go ahead just like all the others that just want to go ahead and wipe your ass with the Constitution because it clearly means nothing to you!
Apparently I'm not alone in my views:
http://
nwrepublican.blogspot.com...t=1214594220000
http://www.anewtone.com/2008/06/...s-on-
enemy.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/
th...if_necessa.html
http://www.onebigdog.net/scotus-...ry-in-decision/
http://www.hebookservice.com/pro...p?
prod_cd=c6606
As for "wiping my ass on the constitution", again, I await with interest an arugment grounded in law.
Look up jurisdiction in a law book. Better yet, read Scalia's judgment in the Gitmo case. Scalia himself says that the matter turned on whether Gitmo is a "subjection" of the United States.
How then is the case outside of SCOTUS's powers? They are paid to determine these questions. If not SCOTUS, are you seriously suggesting there is NO check on Executive power?
Our enemies are winning in the Courts because John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales thought they were cute coming up with a way to avoid jurisdiction in sending them to Gitmo as "unlawful combatants". If they'd been dealt with a POWs, the matter never would have been raised.
You've referred me to links above. Quite frankly, it is meaningless to me what a guy would refers to himself as a Norse god (and I'm arrogant?) has to say on the matter.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2..._1195/argument/
a substantive link for your information.
Well - gee! I guess I'm just an ignorant hayseed that chews tabaccy and I hasn't got a crows chance in hell of convincing one oh so mighty and edumacated as yooself in such high and mighty matters. I guess I should forget the Constitution was written so that stupid rubes like me could understand that concerpts such as liberty and tyranny were the subjects that affected my own redneck little life on a personal level.
Your arrogance lies in your lofty ideas of deconstructing the Constitution by using "cute" little legal maneuvers to break it down and negate it bit by bit.
You ignore precedent - as do our politburo - and are fine with decisions that directly effect the safety of poor stupid yokal such as myself. Prefering instead to instill upon foreigners and enemy combatants the the full protection of citizenship and rights while we are at war with them. Those same that would slit our throats in a heartbeat. Although I LOVE how you ignore Keelo and McCain/Feingold.
You claim you care about America and our law - yet you have chosen to live abroad in a country that has chosen to give up its natural sovereignty and sacrifices its citizens and provides a safe haven and super status rights to those that would destroy them. Is it THEIR law you are studying?
I'm not interested in your lofty ideals that my country needs to be destroyed because a sufficient "legal" argument or legislation wasn't good enough for the oligarchy.
What I don't know I have sought in "experts" such as Mark Levin who is a Constitutional attorney and a conservative. I trust him when he states this court is out of control. I trust him when he sites precedent and historical context when he makes his aurguments against the courts decisions.
So while I will not engage you in an area that I have no expertise in - just not bein that edjumacated rube that I am - I am heartily sick of someone who has chosen to forsake their country and has the unmitigated gall to lecture me on my "feelings" that a runaway court is destroying it.
Now - I am angry with you and I don't want any hard feelings - but DAMMIT! I asked you REAL nice if we couldn't just agree to disagree - but NO! You just HAD to come back at me. Well - to hell with that! I have a RIGHT to be concerned where my country is going and I certainly don't need someone who is studying law to fucking tell I have no right for my concern.
FYI - this oligarchy also chooses NOT to use the Constitution to base their decisions. Oh NO! They prefer foreign law as the basis for their decisions - I reject this as should every American:
http://www.fed-soc.org/doclib/
20...4_hargensov.pdf
“…The Bible is not the Rule of Law. While it is correct that the Christian religion and culture is a source of law, you overstate the case…”
Kris, you misrepresent what I said. I never said ‘the bible is the rule of law’. This is what I said:
“…But you have overlooked the fact that our constitution is based on moral principles that do not change at the whim of the populous. That is why our framers used a document that has stood the test of time to create the fundamentals for the rule of law; the bible…”
E.G.
A. [O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion.
From:
Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 6.
B. All [laws], however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human. . . . But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. . . . Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine. James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice
From:
James Wilson, The Works of the Honorable James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor (Philadelphia: Lorenzo Press, 1804), Vol. I, pp. 103-105, "Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation."
C. [T]he law . . . dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.18 Alexander Hamilton, Signer of the Constitution
From:
Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Harold C. Syrett, editor (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), Vol. I, p. 87, February 23, 1775, quoting William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia: Robert Bell, 1771), Vol. I, p. 41.
D. [T]he . . . law established by the Creator . . . extends over the whole globe, is everywhere and at all times binding upon mankind. . . . [This] is the law of God by which he makes his way known to man and is paramount to all human control.19 Rufus King, Signer of the Constitution
From:
Rufus King, The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, Charles R. King, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1900), Vol. VI, p. 276, to C. Gore on February 17, 1820.
Whether the founders followed the Christian faith or not, they understood that Biblical values formed the basis of the republic and that the republic would be destroyed if the people's knowledge of those values should ever be lost.
“…I've clearly and precisely said life sanction for taking a life should be the limit…”
Then you followed with:
“…The constitution is the supreme law of the land. The constitution contains general principles.
One of the roles of SCOTUS is to deal with questions of how the constitution applies to the facts of a given case. It is SCOTUS's job to decide questions of Habeas and whether a punishment by the state is "cruel and unusal".
I regret simple points get lost in the emotion of your dismay at the conclusions SCOTUS reach…”
You are correct in that the Constitution is a document of general principles. It was intended that way for the simple reason our framers were wise enough to understand that specificity would limit its ability to rule.
“…The Constitution has been successful for a number of reasons. First, the framers tried to look past their own personal and contemporary interests to create a document that could continue to work even in changing circumstances. Second, they tried to make the will of the people (as best they understood it), paramount and limit what government could do. Third, the constitution is based on fairness and quality under the law and does not one group or class as privileged. Fourth, it has the flexibility that has allowed it to be amended when needed…”
http://www.notgrass.com/
explorin...nt_lesson13.pdf
You’ve made a subjective and emotional argument that the only justification for capital punishment is Murder. Yet, even after I clearly defined the parameters, you’ve accused me of advocating Sharia Law when I make an emotional and subjective argument that capital punishment should not be limited to murder.
Why do I accuse the SCOTUS of being idiots? Because they ruled in favor of the criminal rather than the victim… again, and undermined the will of the people... again.
"You’ve made a subjective and emotional argument that the only justification for capital punishment is Murder".
I'm intrigued, which bit was subjective? The life for a life or was it your more amorphous application?
Turning to the role of the Bible in the Constitution. I have already said it is a source of law. I would however suggest that Montesquieu and Blackstone, with his books "Commentaries on the Laws of England" had more immediate relevance for the Framers.
As for the struggle with the concept of the separation of powers with regard to recent SCOTUS cases, I found this link of assistance: http://www.spinwatch.org/content...nt/view/5040/9/
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/
doc...ment_page19.htm
"the role of the Supreme Court to invalidate Federal and state laws that are contrary to the Constitution has never been seriously challenged".
except by the newt one boys. But then again, that's hardly serious.
"I'm intrigued, which bit was subjective? The life for a life or was it your more amorphous application?"
Your OPINION life for a life, and my OPINION a life for the rape and torture of a child (which BTW, I clearly defined previously, but you are still referring to as amorphous), are both SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS.
Merriam-Webster defines OPINION as:
1 a: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
b: approval, esteem
2 a: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
b: a generally held view
"...I would however suggest that Montesquieu and Blackstone, with his books "Commentaries on the Laws of England" had more immediate relevance for the Framers..."
Again, you overlook that both Montesquieu and Blackstone were ALSO influenced by the bible which can be easily identified in their writings.
The whole point I am trying to make here is when the law of man comes up short, one MUST draw from the source of ALL law; not an ad-lib effort to make something up and then claim to have a consensus of opinion from the American people to support one's decision, as Justice Kennedy did.
The source of our law states:
Matthew 18:6 "but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."
The premise that Jesus was conveying is that children are to be considered precious, and it is up to us to take care of them at all cost; not destroy them for one's own evil desires. This is the ROOT of the LAW that should have been considered by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, and Breyer; however, because of secularism and arrogance, they overlooked the source of law and ruled based on political correctness.
They are educated idiots who are tearing the core of this Country apart.
"...except by the newt one boys. But then again, that's hardly serious."
No more or less serious than you or I kris.
The TONE of that comment is what offended Wit and myself. Why would you make a statement like that directed at another individual who is doing the same thing you are doing: voicing one's opinion?
The premise that Jesus was conveying is that children are to be considered precious, and it is up to us to take care of them at all cost; not destroy them for one's own evil desires.
Here's the thing about all this Kris.
Why is that Jesus said all children are precious? Because the fate of the human race depends on how we treat our children.
That is evidenced by more than just what happens to a child of rape as they grow up - they tolerate deviant behavior from others around them and it multiplies.
It is also evidenced by the massive crime in DC and other large populaces where the numbers of fractured families are the highest.
Social workers have no impact on these crime rates, they're a band-aid placed there by (maybe no-so-well meaning) liberals who either truly believe these problems can be corrected after the fact, or just want to wash their hands of it all by being able to say they made an effort.
Child rape begets child rape, prostitution and the other ills associated with sex crimes and the sex trades. By being soft on the people who commit these crimes you send a loud message to the child - YOU ARE NOT IMPORTANT!
Trust me, that message is carried for life. I wasn't raped but was almost raped as a child, my father's teachings saved me. Because my mother made me feel as if it were my fault and made me promise not to tell my father, I disliked her the rest of her life. I loved her because she was my mother, and I took good care of her in her old age, but I never liked her after that, and I never trusted her.
http://honeyandlace.blogspot.com...child-
rape.html
You write like killing is the only way to take a life, I must disagree.
A child rapist dramatically changes the life of the child they violate. Then like a Fibonacci series, their violations permeate the populace and people begin to accept that it is just another crime and then next thing you know, you have one of these monsters living next door to you and your child is at risk.
The line must be drawn, and we must not allow it to be crossed.
Dang Samantha! I am soooo sorry to hear your story. It is also one that cannot be ignored.
I have been seeing a trend in the law that treats child rapists as though they've commited a parking violation. Sick groups like NAMBLA produce a how-to manual and the court (along with an ACLU lawyer) then become very concerned with the 1st Amendment.
The death penalty used to be applied to rapists and I believe Louisianna had every right to decide as a society that they were going to send a message that their children were more valuable to them than the sick pukes who were preying upon them and destroying their lives. The jury could have decided to impose a lower sentence but felt this pig deserved his life forfeited.
We also now know that these people cannot be rehabilitaed and the rate of recidivism is unlike any other crime. Once caught it is usually found that it was not just one child who was violated - but dozes.
So how does the destroying of dozens of lives measure to a lib. Fact is, it doesn't. They don't care - in fact these creeps want to lower the age of consent to make child rape legal.
Hey Witness, Thanks so much. You're right, rehabilitation does not work with these criminals. Funny you mention "they want to lower the age of consent." My very wild-eyed liberal cousin repeatedly makes the argument that sex between 12 year old females and adult males is acceptable in other cultures. He makes my blood boil!
Commenting by HaloScan
