Question on Ron Paul

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have to understand that the federal government doesn't have any power to change if the states have the death penalty, or to regulate how the states apply it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even a strict constructionist would have a hard time with this one. Read the 14th Amendment (even if you don't believe in the incorporation doctrine, the plain text of the Amendment disallows states from taking life without due process of law.

Relevant Text:
[ QUOTE ]
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhm... that has nothing to do with the death penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]


Umm...yes, it does. It talks about a state (not Federal government) being prohibited from depriving someone of LIFE without due process. How you think that the death penalty doesn't fall under the provisions of the 14th Amendment would be interesting to hear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not what I'm talking about. Depriving someone of due process is certainly important and shouldn't be done, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of death penalty laws. Yes, states can't just execute people without giving them a trail. DUH!

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Supreme Court has no right to decide what constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment."

[/ QUOTE ]

What in the world would give you that idea?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's pure subjective opinion, and they have no right to decide to put their subjective opinions over anyone else's.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At most they can interpret the will of the people

[/ QUOTE ]


So in interpreting the text of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is basically a group of pollsters???

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the definition of the word "unusual," when it comes to applying laws that use that word, yes. If a fair number of people support something, it's obviously not "unusual" is it? So when asked to rule on whether something is "unusual," the only possible logical path to making that kind of determination would indeed be to poll the people.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for due process, that has nothing to do with anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your Constitutional analysis in really beyond reproach...

[/ QUOTE ]

Feel free to explain what ensuring that people are granted legal trials has to do with the legality of death penalty laws. We're all breathless with anticipation.

[GoodCallYouWin]

It is certainly more "cruel and unusual" to lock someone in a cage where they get ass raped than it is to kill them.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
It is certainly more "cruel and unusual" to lock someone in a cage where they get ass raped than it is to kill them.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Because it's pure subjective opinion, and they have no right to decide to put their subjective opinions over anyone else's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except for the fact that they are the Supreme Court and their powers under the Constitution are to render opinions on such matters.

[ QUOTE ]
If a fair number of people support something, it's obviously not "unusual" is it? So when asked to rule on whether something is "unusual," the only possible logical path to making that kind of determination would indeed be to poll the people.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe this is your position. There have seriously been some of the worst arguments ever made on this board in the past few days.

[ QUOTE ]
Feel free to explain what ensuring that people are granted legal trials has to do with the legality of death penalty laws. We're all breathless with anticipation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will and then you can explain why you think "due process" = "legal trials"

There is a process that is due anyone who the state wishes to execute. The Supreme Court is the arbitter of whether the process afforded was appropriate (or "due.") This could potentially be anything from number of jurors, offenses appropriate for the death penalty, whether the judge (versus the jury) can decide punishment, what procedures have to be taken during the punishment itself, etc.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because it's pure subjective opinion, and they have no right to decide to put their subjective opinions over anyone else's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except for the fact that they are the Supreme Court and their powers under the Constitution are to render opinions on such matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please quote the part of the Constitution that says this.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a fair number of people support something, it's obviously not "unusual" is it? So when asked to rule on whether something is "unusual," the only possible logical path to making that kind of determination would indeed be to poll the people.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe this is your position. There have seriously been some of the worst arguments ever made on this board in the past few days.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, you can't think up a response to this obvious truth.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Feel free to explain what ensuring that people are granted legal trials has to do with the legality of death penalty laws. We're all breathless with anticipation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will and then you can explain why you think "due process" = "legal trials"

[/ QUOTE ]

Because of the definition?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/due%20process

[ QUOTE ]
There is a process that is due anyone who the state wishes to execute. The Supreme Court is the arbitter of whether the process afforded was appropriate (or "due.") This could potentially be anything from number of jurors, offenses appropriate for the death penalty, whether the judge (versus the jury) can decide punishment, what procedures have to be taken during the punishment itself, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

The process = following the law. Via due process, the Supreme Court cannot decide what crimes can and cannot be charged with the death penality, they can only decide whether or not the "process" set down by the "laws" is being followed or not. The "unusual" argument, while also wrong, is a lot less flimsy than this.

[elwoodblues]

So your positions are:
Supreme Court does not have the power to render opinions interpreting the text of the Constitution because their opinion is no better than anyone elses.

When interpreting the term "cruel and unusual punishment" the court should poll the populace to see what unusual means.

The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment give the federal government no authoriy over state capital punishment cases.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
So your positions are:
Supreme Court does not have the power to render opinions interpreting the text of the Constitution because their opinion is no better than anyone elses.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]
When interpreting the term "cruel and unusual punishment" the court should poll the populace to see what unusual means.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]
The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment give the federal government no authoriy over state capital punishment cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, so long as they are obeying the law. Here's that pesky definition again!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/due%20process

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
Because it's pure subjective opinion, and they have no right to decide to put their subjective opinions over anyone else's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alex,

What gives the authors of the constitution the right to have their pure subjective opinion be put over everyone elses?

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Except for the fact that they are the Supreme Court and their powers under the Constitution are to render opinions on such matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please quote the part of the Constitution that says this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Judicial review is not explicitly part of the Constitution, which merely grants the federal judiciary jurisdiction over "cases arising under the Constitution". The Supreme Court gave itself the power of judicial review in the Marbury v. Madison case.

However, judicial review was discussed as an appropriate role for the judiciary in the Federalist Papers. Given this discussion and the fact that Marbury was decided only a decade after the Constitution was ratified, I think it is fair to say that judicial review was part of the framer's intent.

[ QUOTE ]
If a fair number of people support something, it's obviously not "unusual" is it? So when asked to rule on whether something is "unusual," the only possible logical path to making that kind of determination would indeed be to poll the people.


[/ QUOTE ]

The question is not whether the death penalty is "cruel and unusual punishment" (which is an empirical question), but rather whether the Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether the death penalty under various circumstances and implementations is cruel and unusual punishment. Are you saying the don't have authority to interpret something that is plainly in the language of the constitution?