I don't really care about this one way or the other, but Justice Kennedy's rationale is disturbing. According to USA Today:
"Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, cited the fact that most states don't allow the execution of juvenile killers and those that do use the penalty infrequently. The trend, he noted, was to abolish the practice. "Our society views juveniles ... as categorically less culpable than the average criminal," Kennedy wrote. "
Ok... that fits under the "evolving standards" concept, right? But the problem is that standards can evolve in more than one direction. If the trend were to reverse itself, how could the SCOTUS become aware of that and reverse this decision, if the states are precluded from expressing it by passing laws that permit the execution of juveniles...?
-- I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
StephenJ wrote:> I don't really care about this one way or the other, but Justice Kennedy's> rationale is disturbing. According to USA Today:>
"Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, cited the fact that most> states don't allow the execution of juvenile killers and those that do use> the penalty infrequently. The trend, he noted, was to abolish the practice.> "Our society views juveniles ... as categorically less culpable than the> average criminal," Kennedy wrote. ">
Ok... that fits under the "evolving standards" concept, right? But the> problem is that standards can evolve in more than one direction. If the> trend were to reverse itself, how could the SCOTUS become aware of that and> reverse this decision, if the states are precluded from expressing it by> passing laws that permit the execution of juveniles...?>
SCOTUS: a very un-bush like opinion.
PP PP PP PP PP tt tt PP PP PP tt tt PP PP tttttt ttttttt PP PP ii ttt ttt PP ii ii it tt tt tt tt PP iii iii ttt tt
Confinement for 30 years for a teenager is more cruel than death. I> applaud the decision.>
Augustine of Hippo would pray, "Make me chaste, Lord. But not now." Apparently Sullivan, even as Death coughs on Sullivan's stoop, must pray, "Make me kinder, Lord. But not now."
J. Hugh Sullivan 3 March 2005 00:58:25 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:03:00 -0500, Jeffrey Davis <res099c9@alltel.net> wrote:
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:>
Confinement for 30 years for a teenager is more cruel than death. I>> applaud the decision.>>
Augustine of Hippo would pray, "Make me chaste, Lord. But not now." >Apparently Sullivan, even as Death coughs on Sullivan's stoop, must >pray, "Make me kinder, Lord. But not now."
About once a year you come pretty close to being right. Except I'm not the one who had a vote for a more cruel punishment.
Your apparent tolerance for criminals is part of the reason we have criminals.
That may be true, but it doesn't have diddly to do with the U.S.> Constitution. The cruel and unusual punishment clause was meant to> outlaw things like the stock and execution by disembowelment (which> England did for treason). The clause is not an excuse for the Supreme> Court to substitute its judgment for that of the state legislatures or> for the law of state constitutions.
well said.
-- I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:03:00 -0500, Jeffrey Davis> <res099c9@alltel.net> wrote:>
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:>>
Confinement for 30 years for a teenager is more cruel than death. I>>>applaud the decision.>>>
Augustine of Hippo would pray, "Make me chaste, Lord. But not now." >>Apparently Sullivan, even as Death coughs on Sullivan's stoop, must >>pray, "Make me kinder, Lord. But not now.">
About once a year you come pretty close to being right. Except I'm not> the one who had a vote for a more cruel punishment.
No. You just jumped in with your appeal for viciousness!>
Your apparent tolerance for criminals is part of the reason we have> criminals.
J. Hugh Sullivan 3 March 2005 04:13:53 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 18:27:04 -0500, Jeffrey Davis <res099c9@alltel.net> wrote:
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:>
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:03:00 -0500, Jeffrey Davis>> <res099c9@alltel.net> wrote:>>
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:>>>
Confinement for 30 years for a teenager is more cruel than death. I>>>>applaud the decision.>>>>
Augustine of Hippo would pray, "Make me chaste, Lord. But not now." >>>Apparently Sullivan, even as Death coughs on Sullivan's stoop, must >>>pray, "Make me kinder, Lord. But not now.">>
About once a year you come pretty close to being right. Except I'm not>> the one who had a vote for a more cruel punishment.>
No. You just jumped in with your appeal for viciousness!
Yep. nothing is too viscous for a murderer and very little too viscious for a draft dodger.
Your apparent tolerance for criminals is part of the reason we have>> criminals.>
And here I thought it was Free Will.
Will isn't free - someone has to pay the dues of responsibility. You give everyone a free ride and I say you should pay.
The most troubling aspect is the continuing desire to> compare the US to other countries when making law.
yep, and justice kennedy seems most enamored with that flawed concept.
-- I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
That's funny, since the words "stock" and "disembowelment" don't show up
the wording in the Constitution.>
The words that DO show up are "cruel and unusual".
You missed his point, which was about what the founders meant by 'cruel and unusual'. They were referring to torture and the like (hey to the bush administration).
It's not any more 'cruel' to inject poison into the veins of a 16 yr old than a 30 yr old, and it's not "unusual" either.
-- I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
That's funny, since the words "stock" and "disembowelment" don't show up>
the wording in the Constitution.>>
The words that DO show up are "cruel and unusual".>
You missed his point, which was about what the founders meant by 'cruel and> unusual'. They were referring to torture and the like (hey to the bush> administration).>
It's not any more 'cruel' to inject poison into the veins of a 16 yr old> than a 30 yr old, and it's not "unusual" either.
It's not any more 'cruel' to inject poison into the veins of a 16 yr old> > than a 30 yr old, and it's not "unusual" either.>
More cruel? No. They're both cruel.
Yes, anything that inflicts pain or suffering is "cruel" (so putting someone in jail for a year is cruel, too), but the constitution says "cruel and unusual", and it certainly isn't unusual.
-- I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
The most troubling aspect is the continuing desire to> > compare the US to other countries when making law.>
People keep saying this as though it is something new and unprecedented
the SCOTUS. It isn't.
Good point. But while you've shown that it isn't something new, it's still wrong.
-- I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
<aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> is Rex Dark, Eskimo spy:
So did the SCOTUS turn the big "STATES RIGHTS" knob to>> "NO" or was it already in that position?>>
The most troubling aspect is the continuing desire to>> compare the US to other countries when making law.
People keep saying this as though it is something new and unprecedented > for> the SCOTUS. It isn't.>
1804 Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy - Chief Justice John Marshall wrote> that "an act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of> nations if any other possible construction" exists.>
1812 The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, the court relied on "the usages > and> received obligations of the civilized world" to hold that a foreign> sovereign's vessel in a U.S. port was immune from judicial jurisdiction.>
1815 Thirty Hogsheads of Sugar v. Boyle, In its decision the court > commented> that "[t]he decisions of the Courts of every country, so far as they are> founded upon a law common to every country, will be received, not as> authority, but with respect.">
1832 Worcester v. Georgia, the court considered the law of nations in> defining the status of Indian tribes and state authority under the U.S.> Constitution.>
1877 Pennoyer v. Neff - A case taught in every first-year procedure class.> Justice Field borrowed concepts from public international law and made > them> part of the due-process clause of the United States Constitution. (More> specifically, Pennoyer tapped international concepts of territorial> sovereignty to rule states judicially powerless outside of their borders.)>
1966 Miranda v. Arizona, canvassing examples of other countries' > protections> against abusive interrogation of suspects held in custody, the court urged> that we should provide "at least as much" protection as countries such as> England, Scotland, or India provided, because the United States has "a> specific requirement of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, whereas> other jurisdictions arrived at their conclusions on the basis of > principles> of justice not so specifically defined."
Some of these cases actually are about international law.
If the SCOTUS somehow feels that they do not have follow the Constitution how do the expect that anyone else will? I bet if there was some move to reduce their power based on the premise that "everyone else does it" they would suddenly find new interest in the Constitution.
Tom Enright <thenright@komboinkcast.nyet> wrote:>
<aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> is Rex Dark, Eskimo spy:>
So did the SCOTUS turn the big "STATES RIGHTS" knob to>>> "NO" or was it already in that position?>>>
The most troubling aspect is the continuing desire to>>> compare the US to other countries when making law.>
People keep saying this as though it is something new and unprecedented >> for>> the SCOTUS. It isn't.>>
1804 Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy - Chief Justice John Marshall wrote>> that "an act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of>> nations if any other possible construction" exists.>>
1812 The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, the court relied on "the usages >> and>> received obligations of the civilized world" to hold that a foreign>> sovereign's vessel in a U.S. port was immune from judicial jurisdiction.>>
1815 Thirty Hogsheads of Sugar v. Boyle, In its decision the court >> commented>> that "[t]he decisions of the Courts of every country, so far as they are>> founded upon a law common to every country, will be received, not as>> authority, but with respect.">>
1832 Worcester v. Georgia, the court considered the law of nations in>> defining the status of Indian tribes and state authority under the U.S.>> Constitution.>>
1877 Pennoyer v. Neff - A case taught in every first-year procedure class.>> Justice Field borrowed concepts from public international law and made >> them>> part of the due-process clause of the United States Constitution. (More>> specifically, Pennoyer tapped international concepts of territorial>> sovereignty to rule states judicially powerless outside of their borders.)>>
1966 Miranda v. Arizona, canvassing examples of other countries' >> protections>> against abusive interrogation of suspects held in custody, the court urged>> that we should provide "at least as much" protection as countries such as>> England, Scotland, or India provided, because the United States has "a>> specific requirement of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, whereas>> other jurisdictions arrived at their conclusions on the basis of >> principles>> of justice not so specifically defined.">
Some of these cases actually are about international law.>
If the SCOTUS somehow feels that they do not have follow the> Constitution how do the expect that anyone else will? I bet if> there was some move to reduce their power based on the premise> that "everyone else does it" they would suddenly find new interest> in the Constitution.
How in any way is using external documentation (foreign or otherwise) to clarify ambiguity in the Constitution "not following" the Constitution?
Either external sources are legetimate aids to interpretation, or they are not. I don't hear anyone arguing against the use of English Common Law in interpreting the Constitution (foreign external source) or the use of other external sources like the federalist papers - people just want to jump on what has been a perfectly acceptable precedent for the entire history of our nation because it has recently led to judgements with which they disagree.
aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net is Rex Dark, Eskimo spy:>
How in any way is using external documentation (foreign or>> otherwise) to clarify ambiguity in the Constitution "not>> following" the Constitution?>>
Either external sources are legetimate aids to interpretation,>> or they are not. I don't hear anyone arguing against the use>> of English Common Law in interpreting the Constitution (foreign>> external source) or the use of other external sources like the>> federalist papers - people just want to jump on what has been>> a perfectly acceptable precedent for the entire history of our>> nation because it has recently led to judgements with which>> they disagree.>
First, I never stated whether I agreed or disagreed with the> court's decision, so you can drop that angle.
I'm not pointing at you in particular - just at those who think the use of external sources in Constitutional interpretation is some sort of new fad because it has been used to generate decisions with which they disagree.
No way is English Common Law an "external force." It has been> part of American law for centuries.
As have numerous other external legal sources. Either sources outside the Constitution are acceptable in Constitutional interpretation or they are not. Foreign law (not just English Common Law) have been part of American law for centuries.
One what grounds was this decision made? The majority seem> unable to identify what part of the Constitution these> executions violate.
The decision is based on execution of juveniles violating the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The interpretation of "unusual" using as an argument the fact that no other civilized nation executes juveniles.
This ruling holds much in similar with Miranda v. Arizona, where canvassing examples of other countries' protections against abusive interrogation of suspects held in custody, the court urged that we should provide "at least as much" protection as countries such as England, Scotland, or India provide.
Edward M. Kennedy 4 March 2005 21:24:25 [ permanent link ]
<aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> wrote in message news:7T21cn87Ib1iN3l@redshark.goodshow.net...> alicamdun@yahoo.com wrote:> >
aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net is Rex Dark, Eskimo spy:> >
How in any way is using external documentation (foreign or> >> otherwise) to clarify ambiguity in the Constitution "not> >> following" the Constitution?> >>
Either external sources are legetimate aids to interpretation,> >> or they are not. I don't hear anyone arguing against the use> >> of English Common Law in interpreting the Constitution (foreign> >> external source) or the use of other external sources like the> >> federalist papers - people just want to jump on what has been> >> a perfectly acceptable precedent for the entire history of our> >> nation because it has recently led to judgements with which> >> they disagree.> >
First, I never stated whether I agreed or disagreed with the> > court's decision, so you can drop that angle.>
I'm not pointing at you in particular - just at those who think the use of> external sources in Constitutional interpretation is some sort of new fad> because it has been used to generate decisions with which they disagree.
To some extent this is true, but never to the extent that the outside source *confliects* with anything in the Constitution (by definition -- why else write it down?). The Constitution recognized (what had been English) Common Law, a tort and contract based legal system.
Then again, Common Law is trumped by legislation, again by definition, but that's one example where the Supremes could use extra-Constitutional law.
Edward M. Kennedy <nospam@baconburger.com> wrote:>
<aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net> wrote in message news:7T21cn87Ib1iN3l@redshark.goodshow.net...>> alicamdun@yahoo.com wrote:>> >
aborgman@redshark.goodshow.net is Rex Dark, Eskimo spy:>> >
How in any way is using external documentation (foreign or>> >> otherwise) to clarify ambiguity in the Constitution "not>> >> following" the Constitution?>> >>
Either external sources are legetimate aids to interpretation,>> >> or they are not. I don't hear anyone arguing against the use>> >> of English Common Law in interpreting the Constitution (foreign>> >> external source) or the use of other external sources like the>> >> federalist papers - people just want to jump on what has been>> >> a perfectly acceptable precedent for the entire history of our>> >> nation because it has recently led to judgements with which>> >> they disagree.>> >
First, I never stated whether I agreed or disagreed with the>> > court's decision, so you can drop that angle.>>
I'm not pointing at you in particular - just at those who think the use of>> external sources in Constitutional interpretation is some sort of new fad>> because it has been used to generate decisions with which they disagree.>
To some extent this is true, but never to the extent> that the outside source *confliects* with anything> in the Constitution (by definition -- why else write> it down?).
I have seen no decisions that conflict with the text of the Constitution. In every one of these cases the foreign precedent has been used in interpreting the intent of unclear passages in the Constitution.
The Constitution recognized (what had> been English) Common Law, a tort and contract> based legal system.
The Constitution never specifically recognized any particular other "Law" - it did draw inspiration from numerous writings including the Magna Carta, English Common Law, the writings of Locke and Rousseau and many other sources.
If a city in Iraq is causing a problem, destroy the city. If you have> to destroy all the cities, so be it. Solve the problem. Knock the> fellow down next to me and I would get the message.
I get it. Kennedy or Johnson shoulda nuked Tuscaloosa, right? Them shiites^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdixiecrat crackers never woulda bothered anybody again.
rich -- -to reply, it's hot not warm +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett / "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world; \ than the pride that divides / when a colorful rag is unfurled."
J. Hugh Sullivan 5 March 2005 02:34:44 [ permanent link ]
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 21:29:44 -0000, rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote:
Minä suojelen sinua kaikelta, mitä ikinä keksitkin sanoa, J. Hugh Sullivan:>
If a city in Iraq is causing a problem, destroy the city. If you have>> to destroy all the cities, so be it. Solve the problem. Knock the>> fellow down next to me and I would get the message.>
I get it. Kennedy or Johnson shoulda nuked Tuscaloosa, right? Them>shiites^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdixiecrat crackers never woulda bothered>anybody again.>
rich
You would have them do that solely because we lead in the football series?
