This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
EnigmaticGeek · 61-69, M
In jurisdictions such as the US, where the government supposedly only has limited powers granted to it by its citizens, the death penalty can never be constitutional, for the simple reason that at the time of execution, the inmate poses no threat to anyone. Citizens do not have the right to kill anyone who is not posing an imminent threat to their body, life, and/or property, therefore, they could never have delegated that right to any government, either. Any government who executes anyone after the crime, is exercising a power never granted to it by those it governs, therefore, such a government is already out of the control of its citizens. This is why I oppose the death penalty. I fully support everyone's right to self-defense, however, including the right to use lethal force to defend against anyone presenting an imminent threat to body, life, and/or property.
firefall · 61-69, M
@EnigmaticGeek: While I'm glad you are against the death penalty, in terms of constitutional law and rights, y'all are batshit crazy.
[quote]. Citizens do not have the right to kill anyone who is not posing an imminent threat to their body, life, and/or property[/quote] This statement has no basis in law at all, in fact it directly contravenes the 10th Amendment. There is no right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness in the US constitution.
[quote]. Citizens do not have the right to kill anyone who is not posing an imminent threat to their body, life, and/or property[/quote] This statement has no basis in law at all, in fact it directly contravenes the 10th Amendment. There is no right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness in the US constitution.
MarineBob · 56-60, M
@firefall: I some what CONCUR let sll appeals run out after 5 years and fry them
EnigmaticGeek · 61-69, M
@firefall: There doesn't have to be a right explicitly stated in the constitution for citizens to have it. In fact, the 10th amendment explicitly states "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." Which means that unless a power is explicitly delegated to the Federal Government, or restricted from the States, that power belongs to the states or to the people.
My statement stated a right that citizens do not have, and thus could have never delegated to the Federal Government. Are you trying to argue that citizens do have the right to kill anyone not posing a threat, merely because that right isn't mentioned in the constitution?
I never said that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were mentioned in the constitution. They don't have to be, for them to exist. Since those rights weren't mentioned at all, they certainly weren't delegated to the Federal Government. They belong to the people and/or the states. Each state in fact establishes its own criteria for determining what actions qualify as self-defense and under what circumstances. And under all of the state laws I'm familiar with, killing anyone strapped to a table, chair, or post, or at the end of a rope, is not included in the list of legal self-defense actions.
My point is that in every jurisdiction, there is a very narrow list of actions which are permitted in the context of self-defense. Executions are not conducted in compliance with any of them. The laws that purport to give the states and federal government the power to execute inmates are granting to the government(s) a power out of thin air, and not one delegated by the people.
My statement stated a right that citizens do not have, and thus could have never delegated to the Federal Government. Are you trying to argue that citizens do have the right to kill anyone not posing a threat, merely because that right isn't mentioned in the constitution?
I never said that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were mentioned in the constitution. They don't have to be, for them to exist. Since those rights weren't mentioned at all, they certainly weren't delegated to the Federal Government. They belong to the people and/or the states. Each state in fact establishes its own criteria for determining what actions qualify as self-defense and under what circumstances. And under all of the state laws I'm familiar with, killing anyone strapped to a table, chair, or post, or at the end of a rope, is not included in the list of legal self-defense actions.
My point is that in every jurisdiction, there is a very narrow list of actions which are permitted in the context of self-defense. Executions are not conducted in compliance with any of them. The laws that purport to give the states and federal government the power to execute inmates are granting to the government(s) a power out of thin air, and not one delegated by the people.