Replies

Capital punishment itself is not a duty. The punishment of criminals is the duty. Society has a choice, i.e. rights, to decide how to carry that punishment out. Or are you arguing that the non-death penalty states are violating their duties?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution recognizes that rights are maintained both in the people, individuals, and the states, the community. As said before, banning pornogrpahy protects the rights of everyone who does not want to be exposed to it, just as banning dumping of chemicals into waterways protects those who don't want to swim in those chemicals.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution recognizes that rights are maintained both in the people, individuals, and the states, the community.

Good grief, another 'bold' communitarian.
Where do you see that our Constitution "recognizes" a States "rights"? The Tenth only recognizes a States powers.

Punishment in general is the duty...I thought I was clear. "Society" doesn't and can't determine how the punishment is carried out. The government decides how it is carried out and yes by banning capital punishment I think that they are absolving themselves of their duty.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The constitution recognizes that there is federal government, state government, and individuals. That's it.

Banning porn doesn't protect the rights of those that don't wish to be exposed to it. You don't have to see porn unless you want to see porn. (with some very rare exception that wouldn't stop even if porn were banned) It's not exactly like chemicals in a public waterway you see. If chemicals were dumped in a public waterway the effected citizens could start a class action lawsuit, or the municipality could start legal action but at no time could the "community" sue to stop such a thing because legally there is no such thing as "community". Funny how that works isn't it? Further if chemical dumping happened on private land (owned by the dumper) only federal law (federal law that didn't exist until the 1980's) would cover it in terms of prosecution. If the dumper dumped chemicals on an individual's land then only that individual would have standing for legal proceedings.