The United States Constitution

Undesired Walrus said:
But you and I have the Human Right Act, and however you feel about it, it proves how modern times have called for modern laws.

But as you are a fan, and I am not, tell me what is so great about these legal systems as outlined in the constitution? As I have big problem with what I see as a largely outdated and arrogant second ammendment act.

Back in their times it was easy to see who was on either side judging on the uniforms they wore. Now, in less ordered times, you could be anyone with any motive.
Click to expand...

Undesired Walrus said:
Remember Oliver, it is not unconstitutional to execute the mentally impaired.

Do you want somebody to uphold that disgusting piece of crap?
Click to expand...


What Human Right act. Human rights are pretty well defined in
the German Constitution and I'm fully aware of the fact, that
the US-Constitution is lacking regarding the clear definitions in it.

What disgusting piece of crap are you referring to? The USC
is actual law. Everything else is either based on it or illegal.
 
Oliver said:
What Human Right act. Human rights are pretty well defined in
the German Constitution
Click to expand...

We both adhere to the European Human Rights Act, and it makes and defines the laws on modern things such as immigration and deportation, among many other laws.

What disgusting piece of crap are you referring to? The USC
is actual law. Everything else is either based on it or illegal.
Click to expand...

That it is not unconstitutional to execute the mentally unstable.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
That it is not unconstitutional to execute the mentally unstable.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.

Amendement 5 said:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Click to expand...
(Bolding mine)

ETA:
Amendment 8 said:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Suddenly said:
There was a ruling against executing the mentally retarded.

"Unstable" is a bit vague.

ETA: Also unconstitutional to execute the mentally incompetent.
Click to expand...


It's also unconstitutional to execute juveniles and rapists, although this applies when the victim is an adult. There are a few states that allow the death penalty for rape of a child and there is currently one individual awaiting execution for such a crime in Louisiana, I believe, whose case will likely go to the Supreme Court.
 
Suddenly said:
There was a ruling against executing the mentally retarded.

"Unstable" is a bit vague.

ETA: Also unconstitutional to execute the mentally incompetent.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was a 6-3 ruling *head-desk*. And that was recent. WTF are those three doing in the SCOTUS?
 
Undesired:
Florida governor Jeb Bush instructed three psychiatrists to give Wuornos a fifteen-minute interview. All three judged her mentally fit to be executed. The test for competency requires the psychiatrist(s) be convinced that the condemned person both understands that he or she will die, and also understands for which crimes he or she is being executed.
Click to expand...
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Wuornos#Execution )
 
"Every time a retarded person is executed an angel gets its wings."--David Cross
 
True Story

So, I'm reading this thread and, through the miracle of hypertext, I end up learning about the Titles of Nobility amendment. Apparently, back in 1810, Congress sent an amendment that said anyone who accepts a title of nobility from a foreign power without the consent of congress is no longer a citizen of the United States. Several states ratified the amendment, but not enough to make it an official part of the Constitution. Interesting tale.

Well, apparently there was some confusion and several copies of the Constitution were distributed, some by state governments, that placed the Titles of Nobility amendment as the 13th amendment. The mistake seems to have been perpetuated by a pre-computer form of cut and paste.

As it happens, lawyers like to append Esquire to their names. Esquire isn't a title of nobility here. The US government is constitutionally bared from granting titles of nobility. State bar association are not foreign powers, and admission to one doesn't grant anyone a title of nobility. But someone, at some time, got the impression that Esquire was a title of nobility and that that the Titles of Nobility amendment would prevent all lawyers from holding public office. So now there is an idea that the Titles of Nobility amendment was ratified and added to the constitution, but knowledge of it has been suppressed because of all the lawyers who suddenly wouldn't be able to hold office.

Wow.

I don't want to watch all seven hours of Michael Badnarik's lecture. Not because I have anything against him, but because I don't have seven hours to devote to it. I have never heard of Michael Badnarik before reading this thread. I haven't voted libertarian in years.

I did, however watch a some of the video six. And what do you know, at 5 minutes into the video Badnarik starts talking about the Titles of Nobility amendment. His whole argument for it going into effect is that it was printed 47 times. As though printing a variation of the Constitution makes that version of the Constitution official.

Badnarik says during the lecture that the "bar" bar examine stands for "British Accreditation Registry." And thus anyone who passes the bar gains the title of Esquire from England and is no longer an US Citizen and cannot be a congressman.
 
fanboy said:
Badnarik says during the lecture that the "bar" bar examine stands for "British Accreditation Registry." And thus anyone who passes the bar gains the title of Esquire from England and is no longer an US Citizen and cannot be a congressman.
Click to expand...

At least he's creative.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Fascism said:
That works the other way--people see "Supreme Court Justice" making a decree and suddenly it's gospel. What was law of the land one day is something entirely different after a different configuration of judges came up with an ruling overturning precedent (probably another 5-4 decision)--and after that ruling, anything the court says is indisputable fact regardless of anything else. It's why I'm not often a fan of people citing the Supreme Court as evidence of what the constitution says--they've got the recognition as experts, but that doesn't mean they're medicine men to be unquestioned by the masses.
Click to expand...

Like it or not, at the end of the day, their opinion of what it says is the one that counts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom