The tyrant might be the coalition with no names associated to its funding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Printable View
The tyrant might be the coalition with no names associated to its funding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Gee, it's much better to use ambigious text as evidence instead of looking at how the text was interpreted at the time. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
It's not a legal punishment. Good job on being less informed than 18-year-olds by the way.Quote:
The 8th Amendment covers this since brain-washing is intellectual servitude.
No, you don't need to take everything to its extreme form to avoid that and trying to do so will probably actually do more to facilitate the creation of that which you want to avoid than what is being proposed here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Yes the Congress makes Law. The Court rules on Law and can strike it down as unconstitutional.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Read the damn Amendment Loki, punishment is the exception...involuntary servitude is allowed as punishment but for nothing else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That was only established with Marbury v. Madison, over a decade after the Constitution was ratified.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
How about you actually read how the amendment was/is interpreted by the courts instead of throwing your inane interpretation out there?Quote:
Read the damn Amendment Loki, punishment is the exception...involuntary servitude is allowed as punishment but for nothing else.
Opps. I was talking about the 13th Amendment. Frickin Roman numeral system. :haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
My point stands. Just replace 8th with 13th.
Quote:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Yes it should. Otherwise if your argument is that we shouldn't care what the founders thought then why bother enforcing the 8th amendment or any of the amendments?Quote:
They amended the Constitution to fix that idiocy long after the original intenders were dead. I hardly think it takes another amendment to realize that executing prisoners is cruel and unusual.
Let me take a completely different look at this for you.
Say there was an amendment that said: "The Federal Government can not execute people." Great right? No executions. But then along comes some judge hell bent on having executions. So he and other judges like him ignore the constitution and choose some inane interpretation that allows the government to execute people. IE: Government passes the sentence then outsources the execution meaning they didn't execute anyone themselves. This interpenetration is COMPLETELY against the original intent of our make believe amendment.
In this hypothetical situation are you with the judge or are you with the original intent of the amendment?
You must choose NOT on an issue you want or not want to see but how the government is structured. Do you want to strip away the protections that the bill of rights grants people and leave it up to a small oligarchy that can ignore the will of the people? The bill of rights is designed to stop the will of the majority from doing some bad things (like restricting essential freedoms) but we want this to be based on what the amendment writers intended, otherwise we give the judiciary immense power.
I wonder if you said that with a straight face since it is part of the body of the Constitution. I even pointed to the specific article and section. Article 3. Section 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Quote:
Originally Posted by Being