Replies

For generations the battle lines have been drawn between those of us who take directly the words of this document, supplemented by others from the men that created it, and those who rely on activism, creative interpretations of the language and the nebulous notions like an "evolving standard of decency". It isn't difficult to see which perspective is dominating the contest. So lopsided is it that constructionists can be dismissed as quaint throwbacks at best, or disciples of sexist, slaveholding white men at worst.

good read, bump

One useful nugget that I've gleaned from this article is a snappy reply to those who would say, yeah, the Declaration might have something about God in it, but it has no legal significance. The reply being, you mean we're still British property, legally?

I'll bet you'd catch some of them flat-footed with that.

those who rely on activism, creative interpretations of the language and the nebulous notions like an "evolving standard of decency".

We all know who they are don't we? When are we going to realize that they are determined, relentless, and becoming more organized by the day? They have one objective, the destruction of liberty. Until the sheeple that follow them understand that the concept of liberty must be held sacred by each individual human being, that it is immoral by anyone's standards, religious or otherwise, for one person to demand anything of another, this heinous behavior will continue.

For generations the battle lines have been drawn between those of us who take directly the words of this document, supplemented by others from the men that created it, and those who rely on activism, creative interpretations of the language and the nebulous notions like an "evolving standard of decency". It isn't difficult to see which perspective is dominating the contest. So lopsided is it that constructionists can be dismissed as quaint throwbacks at best, or disciples of sexist, slaveholding white men at worst.

What Constitution? Why, the one over which we're going to fight the next American Civil War. Like it or not, ready or not, that's what's looming on the horizon. That's the elephant in the living room whose existence no one cares to acknowledge.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff declared the 1994 Death Penalty Act unconstitutional... and characterized capital punishment as "state-sponsored murder of innocent human beings". The ruling suggests that the death penalty violates the constitutional provision for "due process"...

One wonders then how the judge explains this language;

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.-US Constit.,Amend. #5(emphasis mine,of course)

Among the most popular approaches in contriving a basis to end capital punishment is to appeal to the stated constitutional prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment"Among the most popular approaches in contriving a basis to end capital punishment is to appeal to the stated constitutional prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment"

See above.Obviously,when writing the Bill of Rights,at which time the limits of government power vis-a-vis the citizens was paramount,the framers went out of their way to make clear that the death penalty would apply in some cases.

As far as the separation of church and state argument goes,I only note that it's revisionists refer to the "establishment" clause,as though the next six words don't exist...or prohibit the free exercise thereof.