That's certainly within the mainstream of the current liberal view of the courts and their relation to the constitution. To be upfront, I think I was a little thrown off by your "Libertarian" signature.
Still though, even if one has disdain for the nation's founders, or thinks the constitution is something akin to English Tort law, there are some things worth keeping in mind.
For one thing, by its very nature, the "constitution" does not have "evolving standards." For if it did, it wouldn't be a "constitution" would it? Instead it would be very malleable group of laws, not unlike those shared by many other nations.
This might sound trite (I do realize I'm not particularly eloquent) but if the constitution means whatever we want it to mean (what ever is popular or "in vogue" at the current time period) then it doesn't really mean anything at all. Much of the point of the constitution is that it is not a temporal document.
I should also point out that part of the majesty of the constitution is that we already are not "eternally beholden to an 18th century view of justice and morality." If we simply abide by the document, many of these matters would be decided by the voters (and their elected representatives) at the state level.
Something that often isn't taught is that part of the reasoning behind the constitution was that these matters shouldn't be decided by unelected judges (often removed from "the people"). I am amazed that so many are so willing to remove decisions from voters and hand them over to judges.
I'm not sure if you are a Libertarian or not, but if you are, then I would appeal to that sensibility within you. The constitution gives us the bulwark to guard against (what some think) are encroaching government powers during this current period of time. Since in your last response, you have already allowed that the constitution has "evolving standards," one wonders what you think of those "standards" evolving to permit the current FISA Laws.
I'm not sure what your retort has to do with what I wrote? Clearly, that was the conclusion in their decision against the death penalty case in question (I thought that much was obvious and didn't warrant me repeating it). However, what sorts of contortions did the court have to engage in to arrive at their conclusion.
That being said, the court's majority opinion (delivered by Justice Kennedy) also brings up "Evolving standards of decency," saying that we must "embrace and express respect for the dignity of the person." He then goes on to talk of a "national consensus" regarding child rape and its relation to the death penalty.
As you can see here, the court realizes that it is clearly unreasonable to think that the founders of the constitution would have thought that delivering the death penalty for child rapists was "cruel and unusual punishment."
Instead, Kennedy is forced to turn to other more egalitarian notions of fairness and decency. Now while you and I may share those notions, we must also realize that these are not in question. What in question is whether the law was unconstitutional or not. No reasonable person could look at the evidence or data from the period of time (in the US) during which the constitution was written, and come to the conclusion that this law was in breach of said document.
The supreme court was (although it is in large part what it has become) never meant to change law depending on whether the court members liked or agreed with those laws. They are there to strictly decide on whether those laws comport with the constitution. Clearly this one did, though the court decided that since they personally didn't like the law, they would go ahead and overturn it anyway.
...And if I had been in that class, and had you voiced your opinion along with the opinions of your fellow classmates, I would been the real "lone voice." The lone voice, discontented with both you and your classmates. While your classmates thoughts may not have been well reasoned, neither were yours. The Supreme Court decision was a bad one, and not because of "protecting the children."
It was a terrible decision (along with so many others) because it subverts the Constitution of the United States of America. It doesn't matter whether we like or do not like the "death penalty for child molesters" law. The court clearly should have seen this as a matter for each state government to decide. More specifically, it was a matter for the (those closest to the "people") elected officials of said state governments. Even more specifically, it was a matter for the voters of said state governments, as they are the ones that ultimately would choose to elect or not elect representatives based on whether they were for or against those laws.
I may not have liked the law in question (that the supreme court overturned), but they clearly should not have overturned it. It was a matter for the states to decide and not a matter for 9 unelected officials to decide. When will we learn to judge these laws not based on whether we like them or not (outcome), but instead rightfully based on whether they are constitutional (the only question that should be considered).
Slashdot Mirror
That's certainly within the mainstream of the current liberal view of the courts and their relation to the constitution. To be upfront, I think I was a little thrown off by your "Libertarian" signature.
Still though, even if one has disdain for the nation's founders, or thinks the constitution is something akin to English Tort law, there are some things worth keeping in mind.
For one thing, by its very nature, the "constitution" does not have "evolving standards." For if it did, it wouldn't be a "constitution" would it? Instead it would be very malleable group of laws, not unlike those shared by many other nations.
This might sound trite (I do realize I'm not particularly eloquent) but if the constitution means whatever we want it to mean (what ever is popular or "in vogue" at the current time period) then it doesn't really mean anything at all. Much of the point of the constitution is that it is not a temporal document.
I should also point out that part of the majesty of the constitution is that we already are not "eternally beholden to an 18th century view of justice and morality." If we simply abide by the document, many of these matters would be decided by the voters (and their elected representatives) at the state level.
Something that often isn't taught is that part of the reasoning behind the constitution was that these matters shouldn't be decided by unelected judges (often removed from "the people"). I am amazed that so many are so willing to remove decisions from voters and hand them over to judges.
I'm not sure if you are a Libertarian or not, but if you are, then I would appeal to that sensibility within you. The constitution gives us the bulwark to guard against (what some think) are encroaching government powers during this current period of time. Since in your last response, you have already allowed that the constitution has "evolving standards," one wonders what you think of those "standards" evolving to permit the current FISA Laws.
I'm not sure what your retort has to do with what I wrote? Clearly, that was the conclusion in their decision against the death penalty case in question (I thought that much was obvious and didn't warrant me repeating it). However, what sorts of contortions did the court have to engage in to arrive at their conclusion.
That being said, the court's majority opinion (delivered by Justice Kennedy) also brings up "Evolving standards of decency," saying that we must "embrace and express respect for the dignity of the person." He then goes on to talk of a "national consensus" regarding child rape and its relation to the death penalty.
As you can see here, the court realizes that it is clearly unreasonable to think that the founders of the constitution would have thought that delivering the death penalty for child rapists was "cruel and unusual punishment."
Instead, Kennedy is forced to turn to other more egalitarian notions of fairness and decency. Now while you and I may share those notions, we must also realize that these are not in question. What in question is whether the law was unconstitutional or not. No reasonable person could look at the evidence or data from the period of time (in the US) during which the constitution was written, and come to the conclusion that this law was in breach of said document.
The supreme court was (although it is in large part what it has become) never meant to change law depending on whether the court members liked or agreed with those laws. They are there to strictly decide on whether those laws comport with the constitution. Clearly this one did, though the court decided that since they personally didn't like the law, they would go ahead and overturn it anyway.
...And if I had been in that class, and had you voiced your opinion along with the opinions of your fellow classmates, I would been the real "lone voice." The lone voice, discontented with both you and your classmates. While your classmates thoughts may not have been well reasoned, neither were yours. The Supreme Court decision was a bad one, and not because of "protecting the children."
It was a terrible decision (along with so many others) because it subverts the Constitution of the United States of America. It doesn't matter whether we like or do not like the "death penalty for child molesters" law. The court clearly should have seen this as a matter for each state government to decide. More specifically, it was a matter for the (those closest to the "people") elected officials of said state governments. Even more specifically, it was a matter for the voters of said state governments, as they are the ones that ultimately would choose to elect or not elect representatives based on whether they were for or against those laws.
I may not have liked the law in question (that the supreme court overturned), but they clearly should not have overturned it. It was a matter for the states to decide and not a matter for 9 unelected officials to decide. When will we learn to judge these laws not based on whether we like them or not (outcome), but instead rightfully based on whether they are constitutional (the only question that should be considered).