|
|
|
states that wanted to count slaves fully? Justice Roberts nails"evolving standards" ...
|
|
|
In article <fue1n0$
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
,
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
says... samson <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote See, if you really take seriously the notion that the founders intended for the terms cruel and unusual to evolve with changing societal standards, and for the current standards, not the standards at the time of the founding, to prevail as the Law, then you have to allow for those standards to evolve in ANY direction, not just a direction that you believe to be best. I agree with this completely. However, I wonder what societal standards are you talking about. I mean are we supposed to mean cruel and unusual according to the contemporary American definition, or are we supposed to include some sort of overall worldview? Since now only 62 countries practice the death penalty in any real form, and since that trend is going downward, can't it be said that the death penalty is increasingly being seen as cruel and unusual? I doubt the _frame_rs would have wanted US law to be slave to the opinions of foreigners. imagine, the overwhelming majority of americans think having a hand chopped off for shoplifting is cruel and unusual, but the scotus says otherwise because 1 billion muslims in the rest of the world disagree ... ? But the _frame_rs were the same people who said We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. certainly the _frame_rs believed there were universal truths. but we're talking about a situation in which the view of the people of the USA differs from that of the people of other countries, and which should prevail as the Law of the USA. surely the _frame_rs intended that in such a situation, the We, the People... that starts the Constitution refers to the people of the USA? It would be astonishing if it didn't ... in effect, that would mean that the People of the USA, a highly nationalistic people, who were designing a government largely in OPPOSITION to what they saw around the world, were voting to enslave themselves to the opinion of foreigners. simply inconceivable ... When they wrote, We the people, they didn't mean all people in the new states. Also, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution are documents that represent compromise among competing intentions. There is no single intention of the _frame_rs. i thought you just said their intention was the compromise among the competing intentions ... ? Many competeting intentions does not equal a single intention. Think about it. imagine someone is convicted of allowing their dog to take a dump in the street, and a judge sentences them to a punishment of peeling half their skin off and then burning them at the stake. i think virtually every founder would have intended the cruel and unusual clause to prevent this from happening. agreed? They disagreed on human slavery. Yet came to an agreed upon compromise. I don't know if it can get any more basic than that, Domer. What's basic is your technique of dodging the question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
states that wanted to count slaves fully? Justice Roberts nails"evolving standards" ...
|
|
|
In article <fue1n0$
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
,
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
says... samson <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote See, if you really take seriously the notion that the founders intended for the terms cruel and unusual to evolve with changing societal standards, and for the current standards, not the standards at the time of the founding, to prevail as the Law, then you have to allow for those standards to evolve in ANY direction, not just a direction that you believe to be best. I agree with this completely. However, I wonder what societal standards are you talking about. I mean are we supposed to mean cruel and unusual according to the contemporary American definition, or are we supposed to include some sort of overall worldview? Since now only 62 countries practice the death penalty in any real form, and since that trend is going downward, can't it be said that the death penalty is increasingly being seen as cruel and unusual? I doubt the _frame_rs would have wanted US law to be slave to the opinions of foreigners. imagine, the overwhelming majority of americans think having a hand chopped off for shoplifting is cruel and unusual, but the scotus says otherwise because 1 billion muslims in the rest of the world disagree ... ? But the _frame_rs were the same people who said We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. certainly the _frame_rs believed there were universal truths. but we're talking about a situation in which the view of the people of the USA differs from that of the people of other countries, and which should prevail as the Law of the USA. surely the _frame_rs intended that in such a situation, the We, the People... that starts the Constitution refers to the people of the USA? It would be astonishing if it didn't ... in effect, that would mean that the People of the USA, a highly nationalistic people, who were designing a government largely in OPPOSITION to what they saw around the world, were voting to enslave themselves to the opinion of foreigners. simply inconceivable ... When they wrote, We the people, they didn't mean all people in the new states. Also, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution are documents that represent compromise among competing intentions. There is no single intention of the _frame_rs. i thought you just said their intention was the compromise among the competing intentions ... ? Many competeting intentions does not equal a single intention. Think about it. imagine someone is convicted of allowing their dog to take a dump in the street, and a judge sentences them to a punishment of peeling half their skin off and then burning them at the stake. i think virtually every founder would have intended the cruel and unusual clause to prevent this from happening. agreed? They disagreed on human slavery. Yet came to an agreed upon compromise. I don't know if it can get any more basic than that, Domer. What's basic is your technique of dodging the question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
states that wanted to count slaves fully? Justice Roberts nails"evolving standards" ...
|
|
|
In article <fue1n0$
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
,
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
says... samson <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote See, if you really take seriously the notion that the founders intended for the terms cruel and unusual to evolve with changing societal standards, and for the current standards, not the standards at the time of the founding, to prevail as the Law, then you have to allow for those standards to evolve in ANY direction, not just a direction that you believe to be best. I agree with this completely. However, I wonder what societal standards are you talking about. I mean are we supposed to mean cruel and unusual according to the contemporary American definition, or are we supposed to include some sort of overall worldview? Since now only 62 countries practice the death penalty in any real form, and since that trend is going downward, can't it be said that the death penalty is increasingly being seen as cruel and unusual? I doubt the _frame_rs would have wanted US law to be slave to the opinions of foreigners. imagine, the overwhelming majority of americans think having a hand chopped off for shoplifting is cruel and unusual, but the scotus says otherwise because 1 billion muslims in the rest of the world disagree ... ? But the _frame_rs were the same people who said We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. certainly the _frame_rs believed there were universal truths. but we're talking about a situation in which the view of the people of the USA differs from that of the people of other countries, and which should prevail as the Law of the USA. surely the _frame_rs intended that in such a situation, the We, the People... that starts the Constitution refers to the people of the USA? It would be astonishing if it didn't ... in effect, that would mean that the People of the USA, a highly nationalistic people, who were designing a government largely in OPPOSITION to what they saw around the world, were voting to enslave themselves to the opinion of foreigners. simply inconceivable ... When they wrote, We the people, they didn't mean all people in the new states. Also, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution are documents that represent compromise among competing intentions. There is no single intention of the _frame_rs. i thought you just said their intention was the compromise among the competing intentions ... ? Many competeting intentions does not equal a single intention. Think about it. imagine someone is convicted of allowing their dog to take a dump in the street, and a judge sentences them to a punishment of peeling half their skin off and then burning them at the stake. i think virtually every founder would have intended the cruel and unusual clause to prevent this from happening. agreed? They disagreed on human slavery. Yet came to an agreed upon compromise. I don't know if it can get any more basic than that, Domer. What's basic is your technique of dodging the question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
states that wanted to count slaves fully? Justice Roberts nails"evolving standards" ...
|
|
|
the rest of the world goes communist and according to communist logic no punishment is cruel if it is inflicted on the class enemy ? communist standards now apply in the USA. the rest of the world gives in to al qaeda and adopts islamic law? well that's now the law in the USA as well. astonishing ... Yes, it is quite astoshing how you can twist words. Jon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
states that wanted to count slaves fully? Justice Roberts nails"evolving standards" ...
|
|
|
On Apr 18, 1:33 pm, Orange J. Dood <no_this_isnt@my_email.com Who lives in a pineapple under the sea, stephenj <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
? See, if you really take seriously the notion that the founders intended for the terms cruel and unusual to evolve with changing societal standards, and for the current standards, not the standards at the time of the founding, to prevail as the Law, then you have to allow for those standards to evolve in ANY direction, not just a direction that you believe to be best. I agree with this completely. However, I wonder what societal standards are you talking about. I mean are we supposed to mean cruel and unusual according to the contemporary American definition, or are we supposed to include some sort of overall worldview? Since now only 62 countries practice the death penalty in any real form, and since that trend is going downward, can't it be said that the death penalty is increasingly being seen as cruel and unusual? I doubt the _frame_rs would have wanted US law to be slave to the opinions of foreigners. imagine, the overwhelming majority of americans think having a hand chopped off for shoplifting is cruel and unusual, but the scotus says otherwise because 1 billion muslims in the rest of the world disagree ... ? But the _frame_rs were the same people who said We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. It seems to me that a greater worldwide view is a better overall representation. The UN thinks you are very smart. I happen to think that's a very dangerous precedent to set. Precedent? The Supreme Court has done it already. Jon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
states that wanted to count slaves fully? Justice Roberts nails"evolving standards" ...
|
|
|
In article <fue1n0$
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
,
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
says... samson <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote See, if you really take seriously the notion that the founders intended for the terms cruel and unusual to evolve with changing societal standards, and for the current standards, not the standards at the time of the founding, to prevail as the Law, then you have to allow for those standards to evolve in ANY direction, not just a direction that you believe to be best. I agree with this completely. However, I wonder what societal standards are you talking about. I mean are we supposed to mean cruel and unusual according to the contemporary American definition, or are we supposed to include some sort of overall worldview? Since now only 62 countries practice the death penalty in any real form, and since that trend is going downward, can't it be said that the death penalty is increasingly being seen as cruel and unusual? I doubt the _frame_rs would have wanted US law to be slave to the opinions of foreigners. imagine, the overwhelming majority of americans think having a hand chopped off for shoplifting is cruel and unusual, but the scotus says otherwise because 1 billion muslims in the rest of the world disagree ... ? But the _frame_rs were the same people who said We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. certainly the _frame_rs believed there were universal truths. but we're talking about a situation in which the view of the people of the USA differs from that of the people of other countries, and which should prevail as the Law of the USA. surely the _frame_rs intended that in such a situation, the We, the People... that starts the Constitution refers to the people of the USA? It would be astonishing if it didn't ... in effect, that would mean that the People of the USA, a highly nationalistic people, who were designing a government largely in OPPOSITION to what they saw around the world, were voting to enslave themselves to the opinion of foreigners. simply inconceivable ... When they wrote, We the people, they didn't mean all people in the new states. Also, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution are documents that represent compromise among competing intentions. There is no single intention of the _frame_rs. i thought you just said their intention was the compromise among the competing intentions ... ? Many competeting intentions does not equal a single intention. Think about it. imagine someone is convicted of allowing their dog to take a dump in the street, and a judge sentences them to a punishment of peeling half their skin off and then burning them at the stake. i think virtually every founder would have intended the cruel and unusual clause to prevent this from happening. agreed? They disagreed on human slavery. Yet came to an agreed upon compromise. I don't know if it can get any more basic than that, Domer. What's basic is your technique of dodging the question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
Favoured: 0
