Posted on 03/01/2005 10:40:45 AM PST by OXENinFLA
Justice Scalia, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.
In urging approval of a constitution that gave life-tenured 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.
Well said!
The word is parity not parody. Also, each individual should be treated on a case by case basis and that includes teens. The insurance, credit card companies, and military do. Let the judges, juries, governors, appellate judges and POTUS decide each case including teens on a case by case basis. Only alcohol is forbidden to teens.
I've been listening. Mark "The Great One" Levin was on and was excellent. Laura said she has to stop talking about this for a while or her head will blow up. I know just how she feels. A very good point that Levin made is that our abortion jurisprudence is out of cync with international law, so clearly the lawyers on the court (he doesn't call them justices anymore, which is a good idea) just pick and choose which international law or opinion they want to follow.
So is everyone else. But there are plenty of protections, the judge, jury, appellate judges and gov and POTUS that can all stop an execution. Only the truly heinous teens will die. I think the Washington sniper is one case where the teen should die. His defense is arguing that the older guy had undue influence but hunting people like geese on multiple occasions and over an extended period of time and bragging about it is too far over the line. Juries and judges are pretty fair. Let them look at the evidence and decide.
I believe alexander the great was king at 13 and not just a figurehead either. Some children stop being children and turn into monsters and at that point, they may need execution.
Not sure where you get your history. I found 16 and that was just as Regent: http://www.royalty.nu/Europe/Balkan/Alexander.html
But speaking of a Regent, one of the definition is:
A regent is someone who rules for a Monarch if that Monarch is too young to rule.
There are many more instances in human history of children being judged too young, than ripe at such a young age as Alexander.
Of course, you are the one comparing one of history's greatest conquerors to murderous children.
TN School Bus Driver Shot, Student In Custody
New Media Producer: Kerry Corum
A Stewart County, Tennessee school bus driver was shot Wednesday morning, as she drove her morning route and a male student has been taken into custody.
Tennessee Bureau of Investigation spokeswoman Jennifer Johnson says the student had not yet gotten on the bus when the driver was shot. She says she does not know the condition of the driver. The student was identified only as a teenager.
County school superintendent Phillip Wallace told The Associated Press no students were hurt in the incident on Scott's Chapel Road near Cumberland City. Wallace was unable to say how seriously the driver was wounded. He declined to provide any identifying information except to say the driver had worked for the schools for two years.
Cumberland City is about 50 miles northwest of Nashville.
I'm listening. Although I previously had felt that it wasn't a problem keeping kids off death row, as long as they were kept in prison until they died, she has changed my mind.
Ok, here's what troubles me about this. If society deems minors as incapable of executing sufficient judgement to drink, serve in the military, drive alone, vote, etc. Then how can we accept that they should be capable of sufficient judgement in instances that can get them executed?
If we want to protect them from themselves with regard to the activities that I listed, then how do we then say that they should be subject to execution? If they lack the maturity to do everything I list, then how do they have the maturity to understand the impact of their crimes?
Seems to me that our society needs to be consistent here.
And some children are mature enough to drink, vote, drive, get married, serve on juries, serve in the military, etc.. Do you favor a repeal of those restrictions on minors as well?
Is is parity? Not Parody? Read the post before genius before giving me a grammar lesson.
Yes if a jury of 12 agree and a judge agrees and an appelate judge agrees and the governor and POTUS agree and the child/parent are willing to pay for the proceedings, then the restrictions should be lifted in special cases. For me a psychiatrist and an independent evaluator and the school principle allowed me to skip a grade. Actually, I was cleared to skip 2 grades, but my parents thought 1 would be enough.
There are plenty of safe guards in place to make sure on the truly deserving teen killers are put to death.
I'm saying there are always exceptions that must be allowed for. Most teen killers should not be killed. There are a very few who need to be.
There are lots of teens capable of driving, serving in the miltary, etc. We just do not want to spend the time and money to figure out who is capable and who is not. In the case of the death penalty, we spend the necessary resources to decide who is ellibible and who is not.
If we needed a trial by jury for every kid who wanted to drink, drive or serve in the miltary, we would be bankrupt. But for the occasional, heinous teen killer, we can spend the money, and time to do the job right.
Someone please tell the court...Right and wrong does not evolve.
So if you grew up in a white family in the south in the early 1800's you would have thought slavery to be wrong? You would have thought that blacks were equal in every respect to whites? You would have thought it perfectly acceptable for a black man and a white woman to be together in public?
Sorry, but right and wrong has been evolving for the last couple of thousand years or so.
There is a clause that prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment"
Many would argue that executing children fits that description.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.