NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, so this is a little dated, but it's big news that the Supreme Court of the United States of America has decided to use international opinion to rule on a question of constitutionality. Are you Europeans happy now? Anyhow, even Jimmy Carter has gotten into the act.


Former President Jimmy Carter praises Tuesday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling banning the execution of juvenile killers, decision that may spare two of Georgia's convicted killers from their death sentences.

Carter and with several other Nobel Prize winners filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case last year. He said in a statement issued today that the court's decision affirms national and international sentiment on the issue and is consistent with other laws that declare 18 the age of responsibility.

In Georgia, the decision could change the sentences of Larry Jenkins and Exzavious Gibson, both 17 when they committed murder.


I understand the victims had no comment.

About time, too.

International opinion? There are plenty of states that already use that standard, and plenty more who are realizing that the death penalty just doesn't work altogether.

Are you Europeans happy now?

Yes, we are. :)

International opinion? There are plenty of states that already use that standard, and plenty more who are realizing that the death penalty just doesn't work altogether.
Two things here. First is that national consensus doesn't make a law constitutional. That was the argument in Roe v. Wade when every state in the Union had a law against abortion. Second is that international opinion was a reason cited by Kennedy.

"It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty,"

--Justice Kennedy writes. I thought the Constitution was the final arbiter of U.S. law, but apparently that's not so.

Yes, we are. :)
Good. It's always nice to throw you a bone every once in a while.

International opinion? There are plenty of states that already use that standard, and plenty more who are realizing that the death penalty just doesn't work altogether.

SCOTUS noted that most states don't execute people who, when they committed their crimes, were under the age of 18. So by definition it's "unusual" punishment.

While the death penalty does not deter the worst sort of criminal, i.e., the criminal you would most likely apply the penalty upon, it does prevent them from ever doing it again.

I believe that the court system we have needs some overhauling - while there are those who say that the courts are falsely convicting (and sentencing to death) too many people, that is a problem with the courts, not the nature of the punishment. It's already possible to get a life sentence without the possibility of parole - and have your appeals end. So you could spend the rest of your life in a Supermax and be falsely convicted with no hope of ever showing anyone the truth.

I do believe that there are circumstances where the death penalty could be applied in ways that would a) prevent recidivism and, b) save taxpayer money.

If they catch you on video, have DNA evidence, and other hard forensic evidence placing you at the scene committing the act (I've always held that eyewitnesses are unreliable - I need hard facts), and the evidence is MULTIPLE and CONSISTENT, then I have no problem with using hanging as a punishment. Nor do I have a problem with shortening the whole appeal process to 30 days.

Otherwise, there's going to be some doubt - and I believe that the life sentence is a reasonable solution. But "without the possibility of parole" should be irrevocable by any later legislation - there should be no possibility of any kind that (short of a successful appeal) the perpetrator should ever see the light of day again.

It's interesting (and disturbing) that to justify the Majority Opinion, Justice Kennedy found it necessary to cite European law and custom. As our Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves, I'm sure they want slap the 5 bozos who are in the Majority Opinion. This is just the kind of thing they wanted to avoid.

This Court is out of control. It wasn't meant to legislate or moralize from the bench. This is ridiculous.

And I haven't even mentioned the specifics of the case yet! My blood is boiling already. Just because these monsters were 17 when they committed these vicious, planned murders--just because they were 17, doesn't mean they are any less culpable.

I think it's high time we re-examine our system of checks and balances. The Supreme Court needs to be checked!!! (As it was intended to be)

Well, I suppose this should make all the folks who want publically funded displays of the ten commandments happy that the SCOTUS is looking to the laws and customs of others.

I think it's high time we re-examine our system of checks and balances. The Supreme Court needs to be checked!!! (As it was intended to be)
Andrew Jackson's actions would have been quite admirable, if he hadn't been pushing a policy that killed so many Indians, but he did defy the Court and challenged them to come and enforce their decision. That's what we need now, an executive and legislative branch that just ignores bad judical decisions.

Well, I suppose this should make all the folks who want publically funded displays of the ten commandments happy that the SCOTUS is looking to the laws and customs of others.

Traditionally, it has. But these are weighed against the laws and customs of the individual US States, and those are given a higher weight.

A majority of US states do not execute children - therefore, regardless of what they do in Sierra Leone, it falls into the category of "unusual" punishment if the remaining minority of US states still do so. Therefore SCOTUS can stop the practice.

The 10 Commandments is a completely separate issue, with completely separate arguments.

Considering that some European nations still have an official state religion, I would be really surprised if SCOTUS took that into consideration. That was precisely what Jefferson warned about, and the Founding Fathers were trying to avoid - what the Europeans were doing.

I understand the victims had no comment. is what Myrmidonisia wrote.

Don't you get it? Kennedy was following European custom, which doesn't consider justice for the victims. The victims don't exist for the soft on crime crowd.

Andrew Jackson's actions would have been quite admirable, if he hadn't been pushing a policy that killed so many Indians, but he did defy the Court and challenged them to come and enforce their decision. That's what we need now, an executive and legislative branch that just ignores bad judical decisions.

There's a problem with that, and the Indian case demonstrates the inherent flaw in such a tactic. The Executive and Legislative branches flout the Constitution too much as it is. If the Supreme Court is to protect the Constitution from tyrannical acts by the Executive and Legislative branches, it needs to be respected. There is another approach. Congress has the power to limit and regulate Supreme Court jurisdiction- it's all in Article 3 of the Constitution.

That's what we need now, an executive and legislative branch that just ignores bad judical decisions.

How is it a bad judicial decision if it concurs with 31 of our states who believe that excuting minors is cruel and unusual? Thankfully we also have states who have ruled that use of it at all is cruel and unusual, and several others that, while it's on the books, have ruled it unconstitutional at the state level, and effectively no longer have a death penalty.

--Justice Kennedy writes. I thought the Constitution was the final arbiter of U.S. law, but apparently that's not so.
Foreign law should be taken into consideration, but shouldn't be the basis of the decision

Excuse me, but how is Jimmy Carter's statement that the Supreme Court ruling was in line with prevalent international opinion on this issue in any way a statement that the Supreme Court actually considered international opinion in the course of it's deliberations on this matter?

Nor is Justice Kennedy's assertion that the argument of international opinion was recognized by the court a direct indication that it was a deciding factor.

The assertion of the originating post has no basis in substantiated fact that I can see.

How is it a bad judicial decision if it concurs with 31 of our states who believe that excuting minors is cruel and unusual? Thankfully we also have states who have ruled that use of it at all is cruel and unusual, and several others that, while it's on the books, have ruled it unconstitutional at the state level, and effectively no longer have a death penalty.


That's fine...let the states who want to ban it, ban it. No one is saying they can't. But we should also let the states who realize there is no distinction between a 17 year old monster and an 18 year old monster keep their punishments as they see fit. The problem is that the Court was not set up to trump the will of the people based on its <the Court's> personal moral beliefs. When you get down to it, this wasn't about whether or not executing people who deserve it was 'cruel and unusual'. What this was really about was bowing down to European beliefs.

What this was really about was bowing down to European beliefs.


I'm sorry, but that makes about as much sense as saying that by allowing states to execute minors, they are bowing to the beliefs of Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Iran, Pakistan, Rwanda, and Yemen.

Excuse me, but how is Jimmy Carter's statement that the Supreme Court ruling was in line with prevalent international opinion on this issue in any way a statement that the Supreme Court actually considered international opinion in the course of it's deliberations on this matter?

Nor is Justice Kennedy's assertion that the argument of international opinion was recognized by the court a direct indication that it was a deciding factor.

The assertion of the originating post has no basis in substantiated fact that I can see.

It was simple enough for SCOTUS to say that the majority of US States didn't practice it.

Foreign law should be taken into consideration, but shouldn't be the basis of the decision



Here's the problem...you can find some foreign law or custom to back up ANY position. So it would be intelectually dishonest to cite foreign law only when it agrees with your position. Foreign Law is irrelevant to our situation. Are we going to start cutting off the hands of our thieves? Stoning adulterers? (Clinton beware)

No of course not! So, why are those foreign laws not going to be cited while others are? How about the fact that the US is about the only country that has abortion on demand. Why isn't the Court ever going to cite foreign restrictions on abortion?

just send them to Texas. we'll find a way to fry 'em. :p

I'm sorry, but that makes about as much sense as saying that by allowing states to execute minors, they are bowing to the beliefs of Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Iran, Pakistan, Rwanda, and Yemen.


I'll grant you, that was a little over the top. The Court just makes me angry. Look...Kennedy hobnobs with European elites. When he's not on the Bench, he can usually be found on some lecture panel in Europe or on some elitist's yacht.

I just think that the Majority in this decision chose to ignore American law and custom and went with a more European slant. Their motives? I won't try to guess. Maybe they mean well...I don't know. This was just a bad decision and reasoning is even worse.

just send them to Texas. we'll find a way to fry 'em. :p

And in the express lane.

About time, too.

Hear, hear!

A big step toward a better future. And yes, I would say we Europeans are happy now. :)

Here's the problem...you can find some foreign law or custom to back up ANY position. So it would be intelectually dishonest to cite foreign law only when it agrees with your position. Foreign Law is irrelevant to our situation. Are we going to start cutting off the hands of our thieves? Stoning adulterers? (Clinton beware)

No of course not! So, why are those foreign laws not going to be cited while others are? How about the fact that the US is about the only country that has abortion on demand. Why isn't the Court ever going to cite foreign restrictions on abortion?
European law specifically

And I said it should be taken into consideration but not the final matter. And some people in the US realises abortions are going to OCCUR ANYWAY, having it legal just keeps it sanitary and done by a professional, though I presume you would that rather not be the case?

I understand the victims had no comment. is what Myrmidonisia wrote.

Don't you get it? Kennedy was following European custom, which doesn't consider justice for the victims. The victims don't exist for the soft on crime crowd.

The victims, in almost all cases, are DEAD.

Killing the murderer won't bring them back to life.

European law specifically

And I said it should be taken into consideration but not the final matter. And some people in the US realises abortions are going to OCCUR ANYWAY, having it legal just keeps it sanitary and done by a professional, though I presume you would that rather not be the case?


I'm sure we can find some interesting European laws to illustrate my point as well. But do you understand my basic argument? We could find some European law that would back up ANY argument. Why cite some and not others? It's dishonest.

As far as abortions go, I'd rather not hash that out here---but, I will say this: it should be up to the PEOPLE to decide. Each individual state should be able to make their own decisions through legislation passed by officials elected by the PEOPLE. Our government was not meant to be Of the Courts, By the Courts, and For the Courts.

The victims, in almost all cases, are DEAD.

Killing the murderer won't bring them back to life.

It will, however, make sure that the murderer won't repeat the crime.

So will a prison sentence.

I'm sure we can find some interesting European laws to illustrate my point as well. But do you understand my basic argument? We could find some European law that would back up ANY argument. Why cite some and not others? It's dishonest.

As far as abortions go, I'd rather not hash that out here---but, I will say this: it should be up to the PEOPLE to decide. Each individual state should be able to make their own decisions through legislation passed by officials elected by the PEOPLE. Our government was not meant to be Of the Courts, By the Courts, and For the Courts.
What you suggest is ridiculous. There is too much partisanship and bias to allow this to happen, not only that but I can assuredly say hundreds of things passed would be against federal and Constitutional law. Maybe we should allow slavery, death penalty for declaring homosexuality, the legal bombing of abortion clinics and other things some people support. The courts are the last line of defense for the reasonable and well-wishing people of this country. If the governments wern't so biased and partisan and followed the law, there would be no need for the courts to constantly check them. The courts do NOT go around looknig for things to shoot down, cases must be BROUGHT to them and they must decide to take those cases and CONGRESSs MAY keep them from taking it, but they are too busy argunig with each other about where they should eat for lunch and why gays are going to hell. There is a check and balance system in this nation and the courts are part of it

So will a prison sentence.
Not in all states. In some states, a "life sentence" can be as short as a few years.

If "life without the possibility of parole or release" really meant what it said, that would be a substitute, providing of course that I don't have to pay for the prisoner's incarceration.

New York was famous in the 1970s for releasing prisoners who had been sentenced to "life without parole".

The prison sentence you speak of is a sham, and in no way a substitute for the finality of death.

So will a prison sentence.
That's disputable

Okay, so this is a little dated, but it's big news that the Supreme Court of the United States of America has decided to use international opinion to rule on a question of constitutionality. Are you Europeans happy now? Anyhow, even Jimmy Carter has gotten into the act.



I understand the victims had no comment.

Dead victims have never had a comment, so why should they start now? Their irrational, hateful relatives are the ones who've kept the completely baseless/irrational DP going in this country.

What you suggest is ridiculous. There is too much partisanship and bias to allow this to happen, not only that but I can assuredly say hundreds of things passed would be against federal and Constitutional law. Maybe we should allow slavery, death penalty for declaring homosexuality, the legal bombing of abortion clinics and other things some people support. The courts are the last line of defense for the reasonable and well-wishing people of this country. If the governments wern't so biased and partisan and followed the law, there would be no need for the courts to constantly check them. The courts do NOT go around looknig for things to shoot down, cases must be BROUGHT to them and they must decide to take those cases and CONGRESSs MAY keep them from taking it, but they are too busy argunig with each other about where they should eat for lunch and why gays are going to hell. There is a check and balance system in this nation and the courts are part of it


There are checks and balances, but they aren't working. We've got activist judges running rampant through America and a Supreme Court with several members who seem to want to mold the Constitution into whatever they want. It's time to start utilizing those Checks our Founders put in place.

It's just disturbing to me that people look at Supreme Court decisions as if they are handed down from Olympus by Robed gods. (Or as if SCOTUS decisions are enscribed on tablets from Mt. Sinai, if you prefer).

Funny you should mention slavery...'cause at the time when slavery was an issue in this country, your wonderful courts were busy defending it. Dred Scot case ring a bell? Slaves are property? Hmmmmm...way to go SCOTUS! They sure were on the right side of history weren't they?

They rarely are on the right side of history. 'Tis a pity people let them wield so much power.

P.s.---Oh, and you mention that you would be horrified by hundreds of things that could potentially be passed because some people support them.
That's the beauty of our system. Some people aren't supposed to run things. Laws are passed which have the support of Most people. It's the Courts who have been creating a Tyranny of the Minority in this country. The views of handfuls of people have been trumping the wishes of the vast majority in this country for a long time, thanks to the courts. There are protections for the minority opinions in this country....but they were never meant to overrule the majority opinions.

There are checks and balances, but they aren't working. We've got activist judges running rampant through America and a Supreme Court with several members who seem to want to mold the Constitution into whatever they want. It's time to start utilizing those Checks our Founders put in place.

It's just disturbing to me that people look at Supreme Court decisions as if they are handed down from Olympus by Robed gods. (Or as if SCOTUS decisions are enscribed on tablets from Mt. Sinai, if you prefer).

Funny you should mention slavery...'cause at the time when slavery was an issue in this country, your wonderful courts were busy defending it. Dred Scot case ring a bell? Slaves are property? Hmmmmm...way to go SCOTUS! They sure were on the right side of history weren't they?

They rarely are on the right side of history. 'Tis a pity people let them wield so much power.
Activist judges is just a bullshit term the right throw out every which way to try and garner support for their radical agenda the law abiding judges are rightfully shooting down. Dredd Scott came before slaves had been freed and the Constitution begrudgingly held slavery was legal


And the majority has no right to oppress the minority simply by being a majority.

Tru dat
Really, the Supreme Court is one of the few things that is keeping America sane.

Tru dat
Really, the Supreme Court is one of the few things that is keeping America sane.

No, actually it's the balance of powers. Courts occasionally go overboard, congressmen pass bad laws, the president does whatever he likes, and overall, it all balances out.

Probably the worst "unbalanced" thing about our government is the fact that the War Powers Act exists - Congress has basically abdicated its Constitutional role as the arbiter of when our nation goes to war.

And the majority has no right to oppress the minority simply by being a majority.

And the minority has no right to oppress the majority either.

"Activist judges" is not a b-s term as you so colorfully put it. There are judges all over the country who are ignoring our laws and trying to impose their beliefs on the country.

And correct me if I am wrong, but the Constitution was silent on slavery (and purposely so). It may have ackowledged its existence as far as counting for population goes...but it provided no endoresment or condemnation of slavery at all. Therefore the Dred Scot decision was not based on the Constitution, but rather reflected the personal beliefs of the justices. That's what we see today as well.

All that we on the right want is to have judges and justices who don't make up the law as they go.

There is nothing irrational or baseless about the death penalty. It is the logical, even-handed, just penalty for murder. Otherwise, you are saying that the murderer's life has more value than the victim's.

And the minority has no right to oppress the majority either.

"Activist judges" is not a b-s term as you so colorfully put it. There are judges all over the country who are ignoring our laws and trying to impose their beliefs on the country.

And correct me if I am wrong, but the Constitution was silent on slavery (and purposely so). It may have ackowledged its existence as far as counting for population goes...but it provided no endoresment or condemnation of slavery at all. Therefore the Dred Scot decision was not based on the Constitution, but rather reflected the personal beliefs of the justices. That's what we see today as well.

All that we on the right want is to have judges and justices who don't make up the law as they go.

The Cosntitution provided slavery may not be challenged until a certain date, at which date the country may decide whether slavery is legal or not. That did not happen until the 13th amendment.


Really? How many times has "activist" jduge been applied to some one NOT lableed a "liberal," I see plenty of activist jduges on the right wing yet they are praised, not called activists which they are. Activist judge is a laoded term to garner support for the right wing

Not to change the subject...but rather get back to the topic at hand. This is Justice Scalia's opening to his dissenting opinion. I think it's right on.

JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and
JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting.

In urging approval of a constitution that gave lifetenured
judges the power to nullify laws enacted by the
people’s representatives, Alexander Hamilton assured the
citizens of New York that there was little risk in this,
since “[t]he judiciary . . . ha[s] neither FORCE nor WILL
but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C.
Rossiter ed. 1961). But Hamilton had in mind a traditional
judiciary, “bound down by strict rules and precedents
which serve to define and point out their duty in
every particular case that comes before them.” Id., at 471.
Bound down, indeed. What a mockery today’s opinion
makes of Hamilton’s expectation, announcing the Court’s
conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has
changed over the past 15 years—not, mind you, that this
Court’s decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the
Constitution has changed. The Court reaches this implausible
result by purporting to advert, not to the original
meaning of the Eighth Amendment, but to “the evolving
standards of decency,” ante, at 6 (internal quotation marks
omitted), of our national society. It then finds, on the
flimsiest of grounds, that a national consensus which
could not be perceived in our people’s laws barely 15 years
ago now solidly exists. Worse still, the Court says in so
many words that what our people’s laws say about the
issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: “[I]n the end
our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question
of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth
Amendment.” Ante, at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our
Nation’s moral standards—and in the course of discharging
that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from
the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do
not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any
more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution,
should be determined by the subjective views of five
Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent.

The Cosntitution provided slavery may not be challenged until a certain date, at which date the country may decide whether slavery is legal or not. That did not happen until the 13th amendment.


Thank you for the clarification...I looked it up and you are somewhat right.
I was mistaken, it was the Articles of Confederation which made NO mention of slavery.
The Constitution mentions it 3 times.

First--the "enumeration" stuff I mentioned about how to count slaves as part of the population.
Second--it does put a date of 20 years before Congress could pass any laws regarding the IMPORTATION of slaves. That date would have been 1808. The slave trade was reviled even by some who owned slaves. And, as expected, Congress forbid the importation of slaves on January 1, 1808.
Third--the issue of extradition. The Constitution said that if a slave escaped into a free state and was caught, the free state had to return the slave.

But, I think I am still correct in saying that the issue of slavery itself is neither endorsed nor condemned. And yet the SCOTUS in the Dred Scott case read into the constitution an overt endorsement (and even said that the Constitution prohibited Congress from banning slavery in new territories).

Take this little gem from Justice Taney's Opinion:
"We think that they are not included, and were never meant to be included, in the word, "citizens," in the Constitution. On the contrary, they were at that time [of the writing of the Constitution] considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to [white] authority. Rather, they should be and are considered an inferior class of beings, who have been subjugated by the dominant race, and whether emancipated or not, have no rights provided them but such are those held the power and the government might choose to grant them...."

SCOTUS: Constitutional Defenders or Vehement Idealogues? (and racist to boot!)

Did you know that half of the people who had their death sentences lifted by this were in Texas?

Thank you for the clarification...I looked it up and you are somewhat right.
I was mistaken, it was the Articles of Confederation which made NO mention of slavery.
The Constitution mentions it 3 times.

First--the "enumeration" stuff I mentioned about how to count slaves as part of the population.
Second--it does put a date of 20 years before Congress could pass any laws regarding the IMPORTATION of slaves. That date would have been 1808. The slave trade was reviled even by some who owned slaves. And, as expected, Congress forbid the importation of slaves on January 1, 1808.
Third--the issue of extradition. The Constitution said that if a slave escaped into a free state and was caught, the free state had to return the slave.

But, I think I am still correct in saying that the issue of slavery itself is neither endorsed nor condemned. And yet the SCOTUS in the Dred Scott case read into the constitution an overt endorsement (and even said that the Constitution prohibited Congress from banning slavery in new territories).

Take this little gem from Justice Taney's Opinion:
"We think that they are not included, and were never meant to be included, in the word, "citizens," in the Constitution. On the contrary, they were at that time [of the writing of the Constitution] considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to [white] authority. Rather, they should be and are considered an inferior class of beings, who have been subjugated by the dominant race, and whether emancipated or not, have no rights provided them but such are those held the power and the government might choose to grant them...."

SCOTUS: Constitutional Defenders or Vehement Idealogues? (and racist to boot!)
I believe all those people are long dead.

I believe all those people are long dead.


Yes...long dead.
But it points to the fallibility of the SCOTUS.
It was wrong about Dred Scott (and many other things) and it is wrong about this current decision. That's my point.

Also, you had mentioned that Dred Scott happened before slavery was banned. Therefore the justices were merely doing their job by upholding the Constitution.
(At least I think that was what you were trying to say)

So, I have demonstrated that they were not upholding the Constitution but rather they were trying to impose their beliefs on the country. And, again, that is exactly what the SCOTUS is doing with the DP case. (And what judges across the country are doing everyday).

Not to change the subject...but rather get back to the topic at hand. This is Justice Scalia's opening to his dissenting opinion. I think it's right on.

JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and
JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting.

In urging approval of a constitution that gave lifetenured
judges the power to nullify laws enacted by the
people’s representatives, Alexander Hamilton assured the
citizens of New York that there was little risk in this,
since “[t]he judiciary . . . ha[s] neither FORCE nor WILL
but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C.
Rossiter ed. 1961). But Hamilton had in mind a traditional
judiciary, “bound down by strict rules and precedents
which serve to define and point out their duty in
every particular case that comes before them.” Id., at 471.
Bound down, indeed. What a mockery today’s opinion
makes of Hamilton’s expectation, announcing the Court’s
conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has
changed over the past 15 years—not, mind you, that this
Court’s decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the
Constitution has changed. The Court reaches this implausible
result by purporting to advert, not to the original
meaning of the Eighth Amendment, but to “the evolving
standards of decency,” ante, at 6 (internal quotation marks
omitted), of our national society. It then finds, on the
flimsiest of grounds, that a national consensus which
could not be perceived in our people’s laws barely 15 years
ago now solidly exists. Worse still, the Court says in so
many words that what our people’s laws say about the
issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: “[I]n the end
our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question
of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth
Amendment.” Ante, at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our
Nation’s moral standards—and in the course of discharging
that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from
the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do
not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any
more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution,
should be determined by the subjective views of five
Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent.


Excuse me Mr. Scalia?

Since when has it stopped being the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and the maner in which laws may or may not be in keeping with it?


Frankly I thought that this was their PRIMARY job!


Using this argument, I guess that the Administration should simply get into the full time business of torturing people - preferable on Pay-per-View to help offset the current budget deficit - because Scalia doesn't think that it is the business of the court to rule on when punishments become cruel or unusual.... so full speed ahead!!! One presidential finding and the world is yours with no-one to stop you. The check to your balance is on vacation.

Yes! We CAN have public floggings again!

Woohoo!!!!!!


:rolleyes:

Zepp, he said, "What a mockery today’s opinion
makes of Hamilton’s expectation, announcing the Court’s
conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has
changed over the past 15 years—not, mind you, that this
Court’s decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the
Constitution has changed. "

He's a strict Constitutionalist. As were the Founding Fathers. They never intended the meaning of the Constitution to change over time. If that is allowed, then by subtly changing the definition of the words and phrases over time, you can eliminate all of our rights - without passing a single law or repealing a single element of the Constitution.

Zepp, he said, "What a mockery today’s opinion
makes of Hamilton’s expectation, announcing the Court’s
conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has
changed over the past 15 years—not, mind you, that this
Court’s decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the
Constitution has changed. "

He's a strict Constitutionalist. As were the Founding Fathers. They never intended the meaning of the Constitution to change over time. If that is allowed, then by subtly changing the definition of the words and phrases over time, you can eliminate all of our rights - without passing a single law or repealing a single element of the Constitution.
Which exactly why they made it variously vague? Unless you have proof the founding father meant it to be interpreted strictly instead of taking in the changes of the time, don't say it. And oh, under a strict interpretation, say good bye to the air force.

Which exactly why they made it variously vague? Unless you have proof the founding father meant it to be interpreted strictly instead of taking in the changes of the time, don't say it. And oh, under a strict interpretation, say good bye to the air force.

Some may say that times have changed and we need new interpretations of the words and of the Constitution.
But it’s not just my opinion. The Supreme Court has ruled that the words in the Constitution mean what the Founding Fathers said they meant, and we can’t go changing or amending the Constitution by giving new meanings or new shades of meaning to the words. And, if you think about it, it makes sense; otherwise, our rights really mean nothing. Congress or any other governing body can deny you the right to free speech, freedom of religion, a trial by jury, or whatever else it wanted just by claiming the words now have a new meaning. An oppressive government could change the Constitution without ever having to go through the bothersome ritual of submitting it to us, the people, for our approval.

Oh, and that's why the Air Force used to be part of the Army. Until someone thought it wouldn't matter (or no one would mention it).

Still, I think the most egregious constitutional violation in our times is the War Powers Act. I don't believe that Congress can abdicate its power by a simple legislative step.

Some of the "more liberal" decisions of the Supreme Court I'm happy with, notably the pro-gay stances they've taken in recent years. However, this one I'm not pleased about.

If a "child" is old enough to conceive a plot, methodically plan it, and then execute it, the "child" is old enough to suffer the ADULT consequences of his actions. The fact that Lee Boyd Malvo will be spared his life after joining John Allen Muhammad on his sniper rampage makes me absolutely livid. Why? Just because he was SEVENTEEN when he did that.

I think the Supreme Court went too far on this particular issue.

Excuse me, but how is Jimmy Carter's statement that the Supreme Court ruling was in line with prevalent international opinion on this issue in any way a statement that the Supreme Court actually considered international opinion in the course of it's deliberations on this matter?

Nor is Justice Kennedy's assertion that the argument of international opinion was recognized by the court a direct indication that it was a deciding factor.

The assertion of the originating post has no basis in substantiated fact that I can see.

The fact that Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that the international opinion favored the decision is indication enough. These opinions are law. I know the rule of law means little to some, them favoring majority rule. But to others, it is very important. Jimmy Carter and the kids on Georgia's death row were just the catalyst.

And still, the victims expressed no opinion on the matter.

So then Legs, what exactly did the founding fathers mean when they stated "cruel and unusual"? Surely if they wanted a strict set of penal codes they would have itemized them rather than put in a phrase that was clearly open to interpretation.


And why were the Founding Fathers considered so strict in their designs for the document when the very same men passed the first group of ammendments - the Bill of Rights - almost immediately after releasing the initial Constitution?


Oh yes, and if they were concerned that the Constitution was to be so strictly adhered to, then why provide the Supreme Court wit the means to interpret it? Surely that would have been unneccessary?

I'm sorry, but that makes about as much sense as saying that by allowing states to execute minors, they are bowing to the beliefs of Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Iran, Pakistan, Rwanda, and Yemen.
That is wrong. Unless the SC decided that execution of juveniles violated some portion of the Constitution, the states would be free to follow the wishes of their elected representatives. One assumes that the folks in the aforementioned countries are not voting in state elections.

Zepp, he said, "What a mockery today’s opinion
makes of Hamilton’s expectation, announcing the Court’s
conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has
changed over the past 15 years—not, mind you, that this
Court’s decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the
Constitution has changed. "

He's a strict Constitutionalist. As were the Founding Fathers. They never intended the meaning of the Constitution to change over time. If that is allowed, then by subtly changing the definition of the words and phrases over time, you can eliminate all of our rights - without passing a single law or repealing a single element of the Constitution.


Actually, the Framers of the constitution were pretty much against people trying to infer what they meant. They had the records of their meetings sealed up so that no one would know how they arrived at their decisions within their lifetimes.

In other words, the Doctrine of Origional Intent violates the Doctrine of Origional Intent.

When the Constitution was written there was already an idea of Constitutionality as being any longstanding tradition of legal custom. IE, if people thought it was constitutional long enough, that made it constitutional.

Oh yes, and if they were concerned that the Constitution was to be so strictly adhered to, then why provide the Supreme Court wit the means to interpret it? Surely that would have been unneccessary?


About this whole "interpretation" thing...
Read Article III of the Constitution...it's REALLY short. It's where the Judicial Branch is set up.
I don't know about you...but I sure don't see anything in there about interpreting the Constitution being the job of the Supreme Court.

The fact that Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that the international opinion favored the decision is indication enough. These opinions are law. I know the rule of law means little to some, them favoring majority rule. But to others, it is very important. Jimmy Carter and the kids on Georgia's death row were just the catalyst.

And still, the victims expressed no opinion on the matter.

So, the Supreme Court should only rule ever AGAINST international opinion? Take judicial note of the rulings in Monaco and do the opposite? Be a petulant reactionary child operating under the same premise as the old joke: "why did the teenager cross the road? Someone told him not to!"

That strikes me as an odd path to suggest.

Kennedy is considered one of the Conservative judges on the court. The notion that his opinion was anything but his own or was unduly influenced by extra-territorial opinion seems very suspect. From the full text of the opinion it was clearly more heavilly wieghted by the fact that the preponderance of states have made laws eliminating the execution of minors, which was enough for a declaration that this punishment was deemed cruel and unusual by majority opinion within the United States itself.

Did you know that half of the people who had their death sentences lifted by this were in Texas?
Did you know that the predator that sparked this case planned the murder of a random victim, bragged about how he couldn't be punished because he was a juvenile, bound, gagged, and beat the victim, then threw her in a river to drown, and finally bragged about how he would escape punishment because he was a juvenile?

So then Legs, what exactly did the founding fathers mean when they stated "cruel and unusual"? Surely if they wanted a strict set of penal codes they would have itemized them rather than put in a phrase that was clearly open to interpretation.

And why were the Founding Fathers considered so strict in their designs for the document when the very same men passed the first group of ammendments - the Bill of Rights - almost immediately after releasing the initial Constitution?

Oh yes, and if they were concerned that the Constitution was to be so strictly adhered to, then why provide the Supreme Court wit the means to interpret it? Surely that would have been unneccessary?

All of these words have definitions. The job of the Supreme Court was to interpret the meaning of the words in relation to their historical meaning, not the meaning of the day. It also has to ascertain the relevance of that meaning to the case at hand. It can also say how high the barrier of proof may have to be to reach that meaning or relevance.

"Cruel and unusual" has a very specific meaning.

In this case, "unusual" means that it is something not generally practiced by all of the States. So, if one state (Delaware, for example), wants to flog people in public for shoplifting, the prisoner may object on the basis that no other state punishes people in that manner.

The Supreme Court has long held that the burden of proof is on the prisoner - not on the State, to prove that something is "cruel and unusual". And they hold the bar quite high - it is not something to be approached whimsically.

A good example of people changing the meanings of words comes in the 2nd Amendment. The meaning of the word "militia" may be found in the original Militia Act - and the interpretation of the Second Amendment itself is seen over and over again in the writings of the Founding Fathers. It is not, for instance, a Power given to the States, nor is it authorization for the National Guard (which is a Federal force). There are even people who want to define "the people" in that phrase as "the States". This, despite the fact that "the people" has quite a specific meaning in the First Amendment. There is nothing to indicate that "the people" should get its meaning changed at someone's whim.

Some of the "more liberal" decisions of the Supreme Court I'm happy with, notably the pro-gay stances they've taken in recent years. However, this one I'm not pleased about.

If a "child" is old enough to conceive a plot, methodically plan it, and then execute it, the "child" is old enough to suffer the ADULT consequences of his actions. The fact that Lee Boyd Malvo will be spared his life after joining John Allen Muhammad on his sniper rampage makes me absolutely livid. Why? Just because he was SEVENTEEN when he did that.

I think the Supreme Court went too far on this particular issue.


I think I already posted this question in one of the abortion threads, but I'll make it here too.

How come if a teenager who commits a crime is deemed "old enough" to have commited it by simple virtue of his having commited it, but a teenager is NOT considered old enough to drink, have sex, etc. merely by their doing these things.

If a teenager who is "old enough" to commit murder deserves to get the chair for his actions, why is a pregnant teenager not old enough to go and get an abortion without her parents permission?

Does doing something make you old enough to do it or not?

...the court's decision affirms national and international sentiment on the issue...
...the Supreme Court of the United States of America has decided to use international opinion to rule on a question of constitutionality.
Your allegation is not justified. You have reworded the idea to mean something other than the original statement.

So, the Supreme Court should only rule ever AGAINST international opinion? Take judicial note of the rulings in Monaco and do the opposite? Be a petulant reactionary child operating under the same premise as the old joke: "why did the teenager cross the road? Someone told him not to!"

That strikes me as an odd path to suggest.

Kennedy is considered one of the Conservative judges on the court. The notion that his opinion was anything but his own or was unduly influenced by extra-territorial opinion seems very suspect. From the full text of the opinion it was clearly more heavilly wieghted by the fact that the preponderance of states have made laws eliminating the execution of minors, which was enough for a declaration that this punishment was deemed cruel and unusual by majority opinion within the United States itself.
You still don't understand. Because this is included in an opinion, it will be referred to and cited as a reason to do or not to do something. The fact that Kennedy decided to include a reference to international opinion means that some shyster can argue that because international opinion favors an end to the widget tax, it must be ended. Doesn't mean it's going to sway a court of law, but it's now a valid argument.

Consensus of the states is just as bad for a rationale. Remember my example of Roe v. Wade? Just because everyone does it, doesn't mean it's right.

There is one reason for declaring a law unconstitutional. That's because the law abridges some right granted in the Constitution. The "cruel and unusual" path should be the focus of the opinion. Period. It would have been far less controversial.

Your allegation is not justified. You have reworded the idea to mean something other than the original statement.
It absolutely, postively has made international opinion a part of case law by including it in the opinion. Why is that not true?

It absolutely, postively has made international opinion a part of case law by including it in the opinion. Why is that not true?
This may be the case, I don't know; but the article you posted does not support or justify this allegation. It is not what the article's statement says. The article clearly says that the Supreme Court's decision affirms national and international sentiment. The affirmations come after, and because of, the decision made --they are not a part of it.

Many of you have this in reversed. The Supreme Court isn't supposed to interpert the Constitution and how it applies today. It's supposed to take the laws today and interpret if they are Constitutional.

I am personally opposed to the death penalty but it's not the job of The Supreme Court to tell the other states that you can't do that. If it's okay to execute people then it's okay to execute people. Now the cruel and unusual part comes from "how you do it." No bashing people's brains in or giving them AIDS kind of thing.

The conditions on why a person is executed is to be determined by each state. Heance why some outlaw the DP and others don't.

All of these words have definitions. The job of the Supreme Court was to interpret the meaning of the words in relation to their historical meaning, not the meaning of the day. It also has to ascertain the relevance of that meaning to the case at hand. It can also say how high the barrier of proof may have to be to reach that meaning or relevance.


Using this argument, civil rights is dead in the US as under law at the time of inception slave ownership was legal, as was diminished rights for non-whites.

While you are at it, best toss out the women's right to vote. They didn't have it then (They weren't men after all) so they shouldn't have it now.

Frankly, the argument that the Bill of Rights was intended to be a static thing when it itself is an ammendment to an original document seems odd. "This document should never change.... except for right now.... oh yes, and the fact that we carefully put in techniques for further changes".

Obviously there was an expectation that it was to be a living document.


"Cruel and unusual" has a very specific meaning.

In this case, "unusual" means that it is something not generally practiced by all of the States. So, if one state (Delaware, for example), wants to flog people in public for shoplifting, the prisoner may object on the basis that no other state punishes people in that manner.


And the court primarily took judicial notice that the majority of states had outlawed death penalties for minors - which seems to make my point.


The Supreme Court has long held that the burden of proof is on the prisoner - not on the State, to prove that something is "cruel and unusual". And they hold the bar quite high - it is not something to be approached whimsically.


And it seems that they feel that the particular case brought forward met the burden.


A good example of people changing the meanings of words comes in the 2nd Amendment. The meaning of the word "militia" may be found in the original Militia Act - and the interpretation of the Second Amendment itself is seen over and over again in the writings of the Founding Fathers. It is not, for instance, a Power given to the States, nor is it authorization for the National Guard (which is a Federal force). There are even people who want to define "the people" in that phrase as "the States". This, despite the fact that "the people" has quite a specific meaning in the First Amendment. There is nothing to indicate that "the people" should get its meaning changed at someone's whim.

Yes. "The people" should still only mean "white men"....


I think not.

Consensus of the states is just as bad for a rationale. Remember my example of Roe v. Wade? Just because everyone does it, doesn't mean it's right.


No it doesn't, but the legal point was not whether it was wrong or right, but rather whether it was "cruel and unusual". If everyone does something, it becomes usual. When a mojority of states ban something then it becomes unusual.

This is not an issue of wrong or right but whether a given punishment is widely held to be appropriate for a certain circumstance.


There is one reason for declaring a law unconstitutional. That's because the law abridges some right granted in the Constitution. The "cruel and unusual" path should be the focus of the opinion. Period. It would have been far less controversial.

The cruel and unusual path WAS the focus of the opinion.

Using international opinion in a national court is a bad idea. However, it was used in Lawrence v. Texas, when the Court referred to the European Court of Human Rights overturning anti-sodomy laws and the like; thus this isn't a new thing, to my knowledge.

Using this argument, civil rights is dead in the US as under law at the time of inception slave ownership was legal, as was diminished rights for non-whites.

There's nothing wrong with amending the Constitution. Amend it, and you're fine. Re-interpret something - well, that's dangerous.

While you are at it, best toss out the women's right to vote. They didn't have it then (They weren't men after all) so they shouldn't have it now.

No, you'll notice that instead of re-interpreting the Constitution, as is the desire of some, they passed the 19th Amendment.

Frankly, the argument that the Bill of Rights was intended to be a static thing when it itself is an ammendment to an original document seems odd. "This document should never change.... except for right now.... oh yes, and the fact that we carefully put in techniques for further changes".
Obviously there was an expectation that it was to be a living document.

And the mechanism is adding amendments - not reinterpreting the meaning of the original words.


And the court primarily took judicial notice that the majority of states had outlawed death penalties for minors - which seems to make my point.

Which it should - under the original meanings of "cruel and unusual" - which it did. They didn't redefine "cruel and unusual". They also did not apply a foreign interpretation of that phrase.

And it seems that they feel that the particular case brought forward met the burden.


Yes. "The people" should still only mean "white men"....

I think you'll have a hard time finding that in the Federalist Papers.

Today, the stand of the Democratic Party is that in the Second Amendment, "the People" means "the States", whereas in the First Amendment, "the People" means "the People". Conveniently, where it suits them, the meaning of the word changes. That's not how you modify the Constitution.

You make amendments. If you don't have the votes to pass the amendment you want, you don't go back to the court and ask them to change the definitions of the words.

The Constitution didn't say that Slavery was right or discrimination was right. The individual laws of the land did which were not the Constitution. The Constitution made the law of "We believe in the people's right to govern themselves by these rules" Amendements have been made since in order to clarify certian issues such as Slavery and make sure that furture generations realize that, that is what the say on Slavery is.

And there is no problem with the Constitution changing in this manner. The problem is ignoring this and just having the Supreme Court go "Yeah we decided that the Constitution doesn't mean this anymore"

You want to change what the Constitution means? Make a damn Amendment.

Did they commit the crime? Yes? Then let them face the punishment no matter their age.

The Constitution didn't say that Slavery was right or discrimination was right. The individual laws of the land did which were not the Constitution. The Constitution made the law of "We believe in the people's right to govern themselves by these rules" Amendements have been made since in order to clarify certian issues such as Slavery and make sure that furture generations realize that, that is what the say on Slavery is.

And there is no problem with the Constitution changing in this manner. The problem is ignoring this and just having the Supreme Court go "Yeah we decided that the Constitution doesn't mean this anymore"

You want to change what the Constitution means? Make a damn Amendment.

Amen.

And I believe that is the real purpose of Amendments...not always to CHANGE (though this has happened) but moreso to CLARIFY the Constitution. To add to it.

That's how we change the Constitution...not by the SCOTUS "re-interpreting" things.

And you all do realize that this whole idea of judicial interpretation was, in itself, a re-interpretation...you see, the early SCOTUS had to re-interpret the Constitution in order to give themselves the power to re-interpret it. Go fig.

So here's the question....is there a better way to ensure that judges aren't bias in any fasion, what so ever? That they do their job and enforce the Constitution, not recreate it.

Anyone have any ideas?

Kennedy is considered one of the Conservative judges on the court.I think if you looked at the voting records of the judges, you'd find that he and Sandra Day O'Connor are more likely moderates or "swing vote" judges. The conservative bloc of the court is Chief Justice William Rhenquist, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia. The liberal stronghold on the Supreme Court is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, John Paul Stevens, and Stephen Breyer.

I think if you looked at the voting records of the judges, you'd find that he and Sandra Day O'Connor are more likely moderates or "swing vote" judges. The conservative bloc of the court is Chief Justice William Rhenquist, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia. The liberal stronghold on the Supreme Court is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, John Paul Stevens, and Stephen Breyer.


Thanks for pointing that out...I was actually going to say that, but you saved me the trouble! :)

The Constitution didn't say that Slavery was right or discrimination was right. .
Well...

Nothing could be legislated on it for 20 years, I believe. That was a provision of it. Once that time passed, the institution took it's roots, and people didn't have the balls to change it.

How come if a teenager who commits a crime is deemed "old enough" to have commited it by simple virtue of his having commited it, but a teenager is NOT considered old enough to drink, have sex, etc. merely by their doing these things?I think if you read my statement more thoroughly, you'd see that I specified that a teenager who planned out the murder would have had to be methodical in his or her planning, to a point where it is clear that the child has a level of reasoning to understand the consequences of his or her actions. Just because a kid is old enough to pull a trigger on a gun doesn't mean he's old enough to get the chair. If a 15 year old is capable of understanding the ramifications of killing someone else, she should deal with all of those ramifications.

I for one do not like the arbitrary age plateaus established in law. There are 30 year olds who have the mentality of people half my age and there are 15 year olds who are more mature than I am. That's why I think this verdict is so wrong.

About time, too.
Do NOT get me started on this! :p

Well...

Nothing could be legislated on it for 20 years, I believe. That was a provision of it. Once that time passed, the institution took it's roots, and people didn't have the balls to change it.


Again...the 20 year ban was simply on legislation dealing with the IMPORTATION of slaves. It was basically a 20-year stay of execution for the practice because it was understood that as soon as the 20 years was up, Congress would abolish the practice. (And it did...Jan 1, 1808)

Now, one could argue that the issue of Importation of slaves is really speaking about slavery as a whole...but I disagree.
I'll say it again, the Constitution <as it was originally written> neither condones nor condemns the practice of slavery.

Well...

Nothing could be legislated on it for 20 years, I believe. That was a provision of it. Once that time passed, the institution took it's roots, and people didn't have the balls to change it.

I'm not going to say your wrong because I'm not sure but I think you may be confusing this with the Jim Crow laws ruiling that made them illegal for 20 years and then Reagan kept them illegal for another 20 years.

The Supreme Court does not have to be 'reinterpreting' the constitution to decide now that executing juveniles is now 'cruel and unusual.' It may be that the nature of the punishment changes in relation to what is forbidden by the constitution. That is perfectly possible given the 'unusual' element. What was once not unusual may become unusual. It is certainly unusual now, and it is not only preferable but necessary to look at the practices of the states and of other countries when deciding whether something is unusual, because 'unusual' is completely meaningless without comparisons.

Whether the punishment is cruel is a matter of opinion. The values of the judges will come ito play, and not everyone is keen on that. However, if you use the word 'cruel' without defining it then you have to accept that people will make their own judgements about what constitutes 'cruel.' Furthermore, you cannot, in a court with no appeal, make previous judgements binding perpetually, because bad decisions will then be entrenched into your law. The court should be reluctant to overturn previous decisions on the matter, but if it feels that the reasons for doing so are compelling then it should, particularly in a case like this that involves the life and death of citizens. What is now regarded as cruel is different to what once was, and it would be truly bizarre for a modern state to enforce 18th century values on its current law.

Two things here. First is that national consensus doesn't make a law constitutional.

Actually, when it comes to interpreting what phrases like "cruel and unusual" mean, it is entirely appropriate to refer to the opinions of the day. (I actually wasn't paying much attention to this case, so I admit I don't know for sure that the decision in anyway rests on this. But I suspect it had to at least be considered.)

That was the argument in Roe v. Wade when every state in the Union had a law against abortion.

Yes... but there the decision dealt with a right. And while consensus can give meaning to inherently ambiguous phrases, it does not (in theory) define or limit the scope of rights: if it did, they would not be rights. So, unless you think the Constitution grants a "right to execute," you are going to need to find another argument.

As for international opinion, I see no reason that it should not be included in the equation. Again, when deciding the meaning of ambiguous clauses, everything is fair game... and I think it is quite responsible of our founders to have included an institution capable of weighing United States legal practice against the wisdom of the world. Think of it like a conscience against our own worst nature. (Of course, if we're REALLY opposed to the decision, there are ways around it.)

I'm not going to say your wrong because I'm not sure but I think you may be confusing this with the Jim Crow laws ruiling that made them illegal for 20 years and then Reagan kept them illegal for another 20 years.

My reference is in a book called Founding Brothers by Joseph J Ellis...winner of the 'Pulitzer Price.'

Quote:

Then Jackson described the Sectional Compromise at the Constitutional Convention, whereby "the sourthern states for this very principle gave into what might be termed the naivagation law of the eastern and western states," a concession granted in return for retention of the slave trade for twenty years. ....

The Quacker petitioner were now asking Congress to break that compact and thereby violate the understanding on which the states of the Deep South had entered the Union.

pg. 98.

So, unless you think the Constitution grants a "right to execute," you are going to need to find another argument.

The only thinkg I would say here is that the Constitution does give the authority to the states to deal with specific issues not enumerated within the text of the Constitution. How to deal with murderers is one of these issues.

As a side note...(and this is not directed at you Anarch, just a general rant) It really bugs me when people talk about their "Constitutional Rights" as if the Constitution is where our rights come from. We already have our rights...they have been "endowed by our Creator". The first amendment doesn't give us free speech, etc. It simply says that Congress shall make no law which abridges our Natural Right to speak freely. Etc.

Are you Europeans happy now?
Yes. I think anyone who favours executing children is a sick little pig.

Yes. I think anyone who favours executing children is a sick little pig.


The "children" we are talking about here are 17 year old murderers.
The specifics of the actual case brought before the SCOTUS are chilling. This monster planned the murder ahead of time and executed it. The woman was tied up and taped then beaten and finally tossed over a bridge into a river where she drowned. The disgusting perp than bragged about what he had done.
He knew exactly what he was doing and deserves the DP. Period.

Again...the 20 year ban was simply on legislation dealing with the IMPORTATION of slaves. It was basically a 20-year stay of execution for the practice because it was understood that as soon as the 20 years was up, Congress would abolish the practice. (And it did...Jan 1, 1808)

Now, one could argue that the issue of Importation of slaves is really speaking about slavery as a whole...but I disagree.
I'll say it again, the Constitution <as it was originally written> neither condones nor condemns the practice of slavery.

Yes, but....

The proslavery exponents were using scare tactics...like below...

William Smith, of Southern Carolina, .... The Constitution was absolutely clear that the slave trade could not be ended before 1808; there was a sectionial compact that recongnized slavery's existence where it was already rooted south of the Pontomac; any attempt to renegotiate the compact would mean the dissolution of the union; the demographic and racial realities rendered any emancipation scheme impossible, most especially for white southerners who lived amid a sizable black population.

*While I understand what you're saying, the practicality of ending slavery with the South, while permitting a slave trade and having an already exponential population seemed impossible in the minds of then leaders. Any 'reasonable' attempt at ending slavery would cost 125 million dollars, with a country in debt at 77 million. It meant either America was united or it meant the south made their own country. In other words, many in the South took that provision in that light.

The "children" we are talking about here are 17 year old murderers.
The specifics of the actual case brought before the SCOTUS are chilling. This monster planned the murder ahead of time and executed it. The woman was tied up and taped then beaten and finally tossed over a bridge into a river where she drowned. The disgusting perp than bragged about what he had done.
He knew exactly what he was doing and deserves the DP. Period.

Would you have any age limit on the penalty, or would it just depend on the facts of each case? Most countries have an age of criminal liability (though lower than 18, of course), which is a slightly separate but realted issue.

Would you have any age limit on the penalty, or would it just depend on the facts of each case? Most countries have an age of criminal liability (though lower than 18, of course), which is a slightly separate but realted issue.

I think it depends on the facts in each case.

We already have a test for sanity - that is, the legal term for whether a person knows the difference between right and wrong, and knows the consequences of their actions in that context.

We also have tests for severe mental disability such as retardation.

We shouldn't execute the retarded, or those who don't know right from wrong (i.e, we should not execute anyone who felt compelled to commit their crime in broad daylight in front of the police station, and then dine on the corpse while singing songs on a loudspeaker).

I'm sure the same tests could have been applied to the "child" in this case.

Quote:

'Two unpalatable but undeniable historical facts must be faced: First, that no emancipation plan without this feature (ie compensation) stood the slightest chance of success; and second, that no model of a genuinely biracial society existed anywhere in the world at that time, nor had any existed in recorded history.'

pg 107, Founding Brothers

I think you guys are missing the point here. The one kid is immortal anyhow, his name was freaking Exzavious for the love of God. Nobody dies with a name that awesome.

Yes. I think anyone who favours executing children is a sick little pig.
When it's really a child, absolutely. The predator that this case was based on was anything but a child.

Okay, so this is a little dated, but it's big news that the Supreme Court of the United States of America has decided to use international opinion to rule on a question of constitutionality. Are you Europeans happy now? Anyhow, even Jimmy Carter has gotten into the act.



I understand the victims had no comment.

What exactly is international opinion though? Is it simply following the laws of the majority of other nations, or do we only look to a select few others for instruction?

Would you have any age limit on the penalty, or would it just depend on the facts of each case? Most countries have an age of criminal liability (though lower than 18, of course), which is a slightly separate but realted issue.


I think that the DP for "underage" offenders should be treated on a case to case basis. It's hard to come up with an arbitrary "age of accountability".
I think though, that the true "national consensus" would probably be 15 and up.

Now, I think that the DP should be used mainly for planned murders. Ideally we don't have people under the age of 16 or so who actually commit cold-blooded, pre-planned murders. Unfortuantely, we probably do. I, again, think that each case should be treated separately.

One of the unintended consequences of this ruling is that now gang leaders will be able to give their "dirty work" to anyone in the gang under 18 because they will not be executed. And in this country, a life sentence rarely (if ever) means a life sentence. I think the ruling is asking for trouble and I also think that this is a matter best left to the individual states to decide.

What exactly is international opinion though? Is it simply following the laws of the majority of other nations, or do we only look to a select few others for instruction?
International opinion is certainly not the basis for interpreting the Constitution. It might be useful for writing and amending law, but I don't think it has any place in adjudication.

It does if you're trying to interpret 'unusual.'

This is excellent news, but I hold little hope of the good sense demonstrated extending to preventing the mentally ill from being murdered by the state. Or, for that matter, anyone. If someone is in state custody, they are neutralised. If the state then kills them, the blood is on all our hands as the state represents us.

I'd love to see the Supreme Court continue to pay attention to European -and, indeed, African and Asian - opinion.

this ruling is a disgrace of previously unknown proportions

how dare they cite international law and foreign opinion? fercryingoutloud who cares what all those weenies think?

what will the street gangs do now? send young kids in to do the killing, because they cannot be executed no more, a disgrace this is, a disgrace.

What was really to stop them from sending new members of gangs to be blooded before? Really nothing has been changed

I agree with Keelar - I think it's highly unlikely to make a difference on that front.

However, the important point is that the Supreme Court is not there to consider the consequences of its actions, merely to enforce the constitution. I think that the word 'unusual' can only really be interpreted as an attempt to ensure that the US followed the common standards of the world, as if something was unusually harsh it would be a sound indication that it was oppressive. The Supreme Court appears to me to have followed both the strict meaning and the spirit of the constitution very closely in this case. I think that people get so het up when the court does make political decisions (and there have been many occasions) that they constantly look for more don't see a fair decisions when they see it.

I agree with Keelar - I think it's highly unlikely to make a difference on that front.

However, the important point is that the Supreme Court is not there to consider the consequences of its actions, merely to enforce the constitution. I think that the word 'unusual' can only really be interpreted as an attempt to ensure that the US followed the common standards of the world, as if something was unusually harsh it would be a sound indication that it was oppressive. The Supreme Court appears to me to have followed both the strict meaning and the spirit of the constitution very closely in this case. I think that people get so het up when the court does make political decisions (and there have been many occasions) that they constantly look for more don't see a fair decisions when they see it.

there is no mention whatsoever anywhere in the constitution that executing a 17 year old serial killer (like that Washington/Virginia sniper) is not allowed. Nowhere...

What was really to stop them from sending new members of gangs to be blooded before? Really nothing has been changed


now those kids are likely to be set free by the time they are 18...wasn't the case before.

Another great victory for liberalism... :rolleyes:

there is no mention whatsoever anywhere in the constitution that executing a 17 year old serial killer (like that Washington/Virginia sniper) is not allowed. Nowhere...

I believe that it forbids cruel and unusual punishment. It has interpreted that in a very neutral way.

The constitution is not there to specifically forbid certain laws, such as the execution of juveniles. It is there to ensure that all laws are in line with the constitution. So no, it doesn't specifically say that executing 17 year-olds isn't allowed, but that is not the question, is it?

While I am glad about the ruling, I am frightened that Canada, Mexico, and the EU brought this case forward. They are trying to meddle into our legal system, probably in retaliation for the US not signing the ICC treaty. I have a feeling that they might not stop after this.