General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow does 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness' include being put to death by the Government?
Last edited Wed Apr 24, 2013, 06:57 AM - Edit history (15)
Inalienable means excepting a lethal (but humane) injection?
Answer: It does not. The State has no inherent nor inalienable right to kill, other than in self-defence.
There are reasons why the most tyrannical regimes on earth demand the right to put their own citizens to death. 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness' is not one of them.
Hard cases make bad law. IMHO the 'Death Penalty' is Ultra-Vires The State. If Due Process is a road to extermination then, it is, but a means to an end.
Why did I say the Government? Isn't Judgment is rendered by the courts? Yes. The Separation of Powers is separation of the three arms of State. And all are 'The State'.
The 'Death Penalty' is Ultra-Vires the State.
Addendum: Ultra-Vires (outside the legal power) is a term that derives from English, not American common-law. The doctrine was first expressed during the 19th century. There is no US equivalent. This is not an interpretation of the United Staes Constitution. This expresses my personal conviction.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
msongs
(67,395 posts)denem
(11,045 posts)from the death of those who have wronged them. OK?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)denem
(11,045 posts)Life is more absolute. (1984 - ha) Thatcher: It's not that simple Mr. Geldof: Yes it is Prime minister. One second you are alive, the next your are dead.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)as you go along, here.
denem
(11,045 posts)I am sorry that it was not clear enough.
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)denem
(11,045 posts)Islamic law includes a right of the victim's family to waive the 'death penaly'.
The Death Penalty is Ultra-Vires The State
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)denem
(11,045 posts)There has to be a culprit. Anyone will do. Take a card. Any card.
islamic law have to do with anything? You call it revenge, others call it justice. I'm wondering how you'd feel if it were your 8 year old son that got blown up.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)with hypothetical support/non-support of something like the death penalty.
It's easy enough to say, "I don't support the death penalty", as I have found myself doing.
It's a whole other matter if it's a family member who has been murdered. Would I be able to be so philosophical?
I don't know. For all that I can sit here, having not lost a family member to murder or terrorism, I'm afraid that were it to happen, I too would want justice or revenge or whatever else someone would want to call it.
And who would have the right to tell me that I should not feel that way?
If the families who lost loved ones in Boston wanted the death penalty, what right do any of us have to judge them for wanting a life for a life?
I think this is just another issue where there is no clear black/white. Lots of shades of gray, and I don't always know how to feel about it...
ChoppinBroccoli
(3,784 posts)...........is that no citizen can be DEPRIVED of life, liberty, or property WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. I'm as against the death penalty as anyone, but the fact of the matter is that people who are sentenced to death HAVE been afforded due process.
That's what I can only assume your post was intended to mean, anyway. It's worded so cryptically that it's incredibly hard to understand what your point actually is.
denem
(11,045 posts)yes, The Death Penalty is Ultra-Vires The State, is my own statement of principle. No state with 'Capital Punishment' on it's books can join the EU, and I could not agree more.
The Death Penalty is Ultra-Vires The State
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)It's the only punishment for any crime mentioned in that document. So, what the hell are you talking about?
But to play along, Where does it include being a corporate wage slave? Hell, where does it include being a slave? Slavery was around when those words were penned. The one who penned them was a slave owner I believe.
That phrase is nothing more than an antiquated slogan that never really had any basis in reality. Same with "We the People" and Lincoln's "Government by and for the People". If any of these things were ever true, they certainly aren't now.
Nice sentiment though.
denem
(11,045 posts)There was a moment in time when SCOTUS considered the 'Death Penalty' cruel and unusual punishment. Politics said otherwise.
The 'Death Penalty' is Ultra-Vires The State. That is what I believe. China et al. would disagree.
cali
(114,904 posts)the op confuses the Declaration with the Constitution.
http://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Pelican
(1,156 posts)Ishkabibble..
sofa king
(10,857 posts)Ultra vires = "beyond the power of" for those of you wondering.
My own opinion of the death penalty has changed quite a lot over the years. I once felt that the ritual sacrifice aspect of it was the most important part, a warning to others that some crimes are unforgivable, and a solemn reminder to ourselves.
But since then I've noticed that we execute, or try to execute, a shitload of people, dozens or hundreds every year, many of them no different from thousands of other evil and incarcerated people except that some prosecutor sees a shot at a slam-dunk and upward mobility.
Too many cases have later been shown to be decided in error, and the idea that innocent people have to die for someone else's crimes in order to continue the practice is now more revolting to me than some of the crimes for which people are routinely executed.
The volume and unreliability of death penalty cases cheapens the effort and dilutes its effects, and makes the entire effort and expensive and macabre carnival act I can no longer see how execution, in the vast majority of cases if not all of them, serves any real good.
Plus, I am still a deeply flawed, vengeful bastard, and I've seen Oz. Death is a release from prison, which obviously sucks bad enough that some inmates elect to hasten their executions rather than live our their natural lifespans there.
That may be exactly what those people deserve.
cali
(114,904 posts)between the Constitution and the Declaration. I'm opposed to the dp period, but basing opposition of the declaration? Yikes. How idiotic. The declaration is not the constitution where are rights are enumerated. Furthermore even if one views it as a social contract, anyone who bombs kills and mutilates other citizens has smashed that contract into bits.
Here is the Constitutional argument against the DP:
http://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty
Ultra-vires is not a word you will find in either the Declaration or the Constitution. If you don't know what I am talking about ....
cali
(114,904 posts)
Response to cali (Reply #22)
Post removed
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)pretend our laws come from the Declaration of Independence and not the constitution, you really should be more careful in calling others names. We wouldn't want anyone calling you an imbecile for the ridiculous way you interpret American laws, would we?
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)That is from the Declaration of Independence (1776), not the current Constitution (1787-1789). The Declaration ended our being part of Britain. It has little to no bearing on our current laws.
Ultra-Vires is not an interpretation of the United States Constitution.
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)Ultra-Vires means an act done without Legal authority.
The DP is authorized by both the Constitution and in Legal decisions that have been passed down through the Judiciary. Further, the Constitution gives congress the right to decide the punishment for treason.
The death penalty is archaic and should be abolished, but its also intra vires.
ALSO: You are referencing the Declaration which has no legal authority beyond dissolving our bonds with Britain. When Jefferson said inalienable he was being figurative. You can EASILY alienate a person from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
If you are talking about the legal authority that jefferson reference, "our Creator," you are making a religious argument which is invalid should it turn out there is no creator. Further, atheists and agnostics like myself, would not recognize or accept that authority.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)It seems clear that our founders intended to endow the state with the power to kill citizens.
I am opposed to the death penalty for several reasons, but it is quite obvious that the death penalty is not "ultra-vires"--not if it's described in the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence, from which the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" comes, is not law in the United States. The Constitution, on the other hand, is the highest law of the land.
-Laelth
denem
(11,045 posts)but NB ... Ultra-Vires the State is NOT an interpretation of The Constitution -ie not a statement of the law in the United States.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)both in the dictionary and in the constitution and the death penalty is not given outside legal authority so your ultra-vires argument is moronic in terms of US law.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)penalty once and for all. It's embarrassing.
