Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Posted: 6/20/2002 2:06:22 PM EDT
Today a supreme court ruling came down on the death penlty and mentaly deficient. The question is not about that but rather something a congressman commented on. If I understood correctly, he said that this ruling confirms the Constitution as a living document, as the supreme court has changed this ruling from one earlier on the same subject. What does this hold in store for the Bill Of Rights, if they want the Constitution to be"living and breathing"? More gun control and widened searches? No change at all? Opinions please....fullcip
Link Posted: 6/20/2002 2:19:13 PM EDT
I'm not familiar with the actual ruling so I don't know what it really means, but if the congressman is correct then it means that we just took another step down the path from being a republic to being a democracy.
Link Posted: 6/20/2002 2:23:46 PM EDT
This statement bothers me more. [url]www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,55791,00.html[/url] [b]The majority view reflects changes in public attitudes on the issue since the court declared such executions constitutional 13 years ago. At that time, only two states that used capital punishment outlawed the practice for the retarded. Now, 18 states prohibit it. "It is not so much the number of these states that is significant, but the consistency of the direction of the change," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist objected strongly to the decision, along with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, saying the majority went too far in looking at factors beyond state laws and put too much stock in opinion polls and the views of national and international observers. "Believing this view to be seriously mistaken, I dissent," Rehnquist said, omitting the customary word "respectfully" before "dissent."[/b]
Link Posted: 6/20/2002 2:27:01 PM EDT
Life is like a pendulum. It swings one way and then back the other way. Think about gun control. When I was a kid, my father could order just about any kind of weapon by mail. Now, we are probably halfway between that kind of "free" enterprise and prohibition, all without any intervention by the Supreme Court. Why should the Supreme Court weigh in on the Second Amendment when the trend is headed in the direction most favored by the Political Class? When I am an old man, I expect to see a country where it will be as difficult to obtain firearms as it was easy for my father to get them. Of course the table is being set for an authoritarian government to feast on what rights are left unaltered by the Court. Hopefully by then the reincarnation of George Washington will rise up and lead the small but dedicated minority back to power. Bottom line: the pendulum assures history will repeat itself.
Link Posted: 6/20/2002 2:48:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/20/2002 3:10:52 PM EDT by The_Macallan]
[i]"In the future, the ruling will mean that people arrested for a killing will not face a potential death sentence if they can show they are retarded, generally defined as having an [red]IQ of 70 or lower[/red]."[/i] Ummm, there's a word that describes this line of reasoning... Uh... what is that word??? ...Oh yeah - I remember: [b]BULLSHIT!![/b] [pissed] Things to consider... 1) Isn't it the liberals who are forever saying that standardized tests (like IQ tests) are biased against minorities and are therefore INHERENTLY UNRELIABLE?? 2) AND... if IQ tests really ARE biased against blacks (which is why, they say, blacks score lower than whites), then isn't using the IQ as a threshold for execution then BIASED against whites? 3) Isn't the IQ cut-off of 70 rather arbitrary? Why not 71 or 72? Are IQ tests THAT precise to distinguish between a person with an IQ of 68 or 72??? 4) And what do IQ tests have to do with "intent" to commit murder and "knowledge" of right and wrong which are the main issues involved in determining guilt (culpability)?? 5) Lastly, so are they really saying that "intelligence" is what keeps people from committing murder??? Then it seems Ted Kazinsky and Ted Bundy (who were both considered HIGHLY intelligent) would be INCAPABLE of committing murder because of their high IQ! Shit. So now the SCOTUS is making Constitutional decisions based on [u]public opinion polls[/u].[puke] Bye-bye RKBA. [b]Were Fucked!![/b]
Link Posted: 6/20/2002 2:55:08 PM EDT
These fucking judges are just making up laws that they feel good about, no constitution involved.
Link Posted: 6/20/2002 2:59:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/20/2002 3:00:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Aggie1: This statement bothers me more. [url]www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,55791,00.html[/url] [b]saying the majority went too far in looking at factors beyond state laws and put too much stock in opinion polls and the views of national and international observers.
View Quote
Good lord, it's worse than I thought. We just took a REALLY big step from republic towards democracy.
Link Posted: 6/20/2002 3:01:34 PM EDT
This ruling gives a lot of power to those who administer intelligence tests, doesn't it? And it will increase the cost of capitol murder cases as everyone and their brother will plead retardation. "It's not my fault! I am the product of public schooling! They made me retarted."
Link Posted: 6/20/2002 3:14:11 PM EDT
We should be surprised? Just another step to bring us more in line with the rest of the world....Globalize or Die! [:D]
Top Top