NationStates Jolt Archive

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

....
Well?

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

....
Well?

Answer your question?

Death Penalty is still wrong, though.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

....
Well?

Without due process of law???

Edit: You beat me to it... Good for you

Without due process of law???
What do you mean?

What do you mean?


The constitution says as I read it. State cannot take your life, without due process of law.

It's still wrong, but that's what it says.

Meaning, moral or not, the death penalty is allowed by our constitution, provided the state went through due process of law (i.e. a trial) to arrive at it.

ZAP!

The constitution says as I read it. State cannot take your life, without due process of law.

It's still wrong, but that's what it says.
Isn't that what I said?

They may only receive the death penalty until they've had a trial.

oh wow. my bad. remind me not to become a supreme justice.

oh wow. my bad. remind me not to become a supreme justice.
lol

If you want to start a conversation, ask poeple if they think it's right ;)

Lol

Isn't that what I said?

They may only receive the death penalty until they've had a trial.


Yes! But why did you ask: "What do you mean" if you mentioned it earlier than me? And noted that in my first post.

Honestly I'm really confused at the time? :confused:

lol

If you want to start a conversation, ask poeple if they think it's right ;)


Well, if you want a conversation then yes, but remember It'll be one heck of
a conversation. Mark my words :p

What about the ban on cruel and unusual punishment? Amendment XIII? Do you think that killing someone is cruel?

Edit: Amendment VIII. Those crazy Romans...

Yes! But why did you ask: "What do you mean" if you mentioned it earlier than me? And noted that in my first post.

Honestly I'm really confused at the time? :confused:
Because you put question marks behind it, so I got confused...Sorry.

What about the ban on cruel and unusual punishment? Amendment XIII? Do you think that killing someone is cruel?
Unless they could defend themselves FAIRLY, it's wrong.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

....
Well?

I think you missed a part.....

I think you missed a part.....
I think that's teh 4th time someone has posted that...

Unless they could defend themselves FAIRLY, it's wrong.

What are you saying here? If someone shoots and kills a guy who's carrying a gun, then it's ok?

lol

If you want to start a conversation, ask poeple if they think it's right ;)
good point.
In fact, I want to change the entire topic (is that allowed) because i do not want to annoyingly create a whole 'nother thread.

Should felons be disenfranchised? In 15 states in the US, if you are a convicted felon, you are barred from voting for the REST OF YOUR LIFE. In 47 states, you cannot vote whilst you are in prison. Those three cool states that allow it are Utah, Vermont, and .... Maine? Maybe?

Anyway, I think it's perposterous to take away someone's vote to right no matter what they have done. As long as they are a citizen of the United States, you deserve the same rights as everybody else.

What about the ban on cruel and unusual punishment? Amendment XIII? Do you think that killing someone is cruel?

Edit: Amendment VIII. Those crazy Romans...

That amendment was written by the same guys who wrote the 5th Amendment, which says that no one may be put in jeopody of life or limb for the same crime twice. Seems to imply that the death penalty isn't cruel or unusual.

What are you saying here? If someone shoots and kills a guy who's carrying a gun, then it's ok?
No. Sorry, I shoudl have been more specific. I meant in trial...

Because you put question marks behind it, so I got confused...Sorry.

Oh, those! They were fot the original poster (I wanted to make sure did he
read the text, kind of funny joke I guess)

Who am I kiding I don't tell funny jokes :(

Who am I kiding I don't tell funny jokes :(

that was funny...

I think that's teh 4th time someone has posted that...

Doh!

Never start a post, walk away and then submit......

that was funny...

Thanks you made my day...
Oh, I better go post it on the "one thing that makes your day" post.

Doh!

Never start a post, walk away and then submit......

The Simpsons!! Yay!!!!

Doh!

Never start a post, walk away and then submit......

:D :D

Did anyone see my post about changing the topic?

:D :D

Did anyone see my post about changing the topic?
Yes

Be warned. It is law that every successful thread must end with religion...lol

As I was responding, others already jumped on you about the failing to recognize the "due process of law" part of the phrase. And you've been directed to the 8th Amendment.

I'll provide the rest of my comment anyway ....

I think you have a difficult time claiming capital punishment is per se unconstitutional. A better argument can be made that it is unconstitutional as it is applied -- and even that it cannot be applied constitutionally.

Here are some resources you may wish to consider:

Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/428/153.html ) (Supreme Court holding 7-2 that the death penalty is not per se unconstitutional)

Furrman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/408/238.html ) (holding the death penaly unconstitution as then applied, with over 200 pages of discussion about its constitutionality)

ACLU webpage re death penalty (http://www.aclu.org/DeathPenalty/DeathPenaltyMain.cfm)

Death Penalty Information Center (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/)

As I was responding, others already jumped on you about the failing to recognize the "due process of law" part of the phrase. And you've been directed to the 8th Amendment.

I'll provide the rest of my comment anyway ....

I think you have a difficult time claiming capital punishment is per se unconstitutional. A better argument can be made that it is unconstitutional as it is applied -- and even that it cannot be applied constitutionally.

Here are some resources you may wish to consider:

Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/428/153.html ) (Supreme Court holding 7-2 that the death penalty is not per se unconstitutional)

Furrman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/408/238.html ) (holding the death penaly unconstitution as then applied, with over 200 pages of discussion about its constitutionality)

ACLU webpage re death penalty (http://www.aclu.org/DeathPenalty/DeathPenaltyMain.cfm)

Death Penalty Information Center (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/)
Interesting, thanks.