The right to life and constitutional law.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui



Your capability for strawmen astounds even me.

Convicted felons are to be treated humanly under the 8th Amendment's dictate that 'cruel and unusual punishment' be avoided. As well as the various treaties the US has signed which state so.

It is according to the WRITTEN LAW, not some natural law that prisoners are to be treated humanly.

But why was this law against "cruel and inhumane punishment" legislated in the first place?

I would think it had something to do with our organic laws, which includes the protection of "right to life."

[MrFun]

Which also brings up another point.

Given my argument that "right to life" is protected in our organic laws, the legally-sanctioned death penalty in some states is an unjust law in that it violates this protection.

It seems that we have made a half-ass attempt in reconciling "right to life" in our organic laws with a prohibition against cruel and unjust punishment of felons in order to ease our conscience somewhat.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

TJ was trying to establish that these natural rights were of a different order, and couldnt be sold or given up through contractual proceedings, not that punishments for crimes had to respect life, liberty and property.

Inalienable means can't be given up.

Not necessarily in the context that is being discussed.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MrFun
But why was this law against "cruel and inhumane punishment" legislated in the first place?

I would think it had something to do with our organic laws, which includes the protection of "right to life."

You can think whatever you want. Doesn't mean any one else has to agree with you, nor does the Supreme Court have to give any credence to this silliness that anything other than the US Constitution is the 'organic laws' of the US.

You do realize you can be against torture, yet be for the death penalty, right?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Giving this thread a decent death might end a bit of torture.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


You can think whatever you want. Doesn't mean any one else has to agree with you, nor does the Supreme Court have to give any credence to this silliness that anything other than the US Constitution is the 'organic laws' of the US.

You do realize you can be against torture, yet be for the death penalty, right?

Yes, you can be against torture, and for the death penalty.

But that doesn't in of itself necessarily refute my point about laws sanctioning the death penalty as being unjust.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q=Lord of the Mark][/q]

Jefferson's personal views have absolutely no bearing on the intention of the Declaration of Independance. The fact that it was sent to a subcommittee to write up in flowery prose rather than a parliamentary committee indicates its use, to use for public relations.
.

The Congress did indeed direct the writing of the declaration to declare to the world the reasoning behind the Virginia declaration. At least to Jefferson it was not merely propaganda, but his basic view of what government was about. Do you have any evidence that his views were NOT widely shared among that body of men who were in the COntinental Congress, wrote the state constitutions, or wrote the Federal constitution?

[lord of the mark]

"That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. "

Virginia Declaration of Rights,
George Mason.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Do you have any evidence that his views were NOT widely shared among that body of men who were in the COntinental Congress, wrote the state constitutions, or wrote the Federal constitution?

The Federal Bill of Rights has no protection for right to life within it. Certain states did, but by no means all of them. All the Federal Bill of Rights has is an exortation that the federal government has to go through process before it can take your life.

I wonder if the view was so prevalent among the colonies (that it need not have been said), why did some states feel the need to put that language in their state Constitutions?

[q=MrFun]But that doesn't in of itself necessarily refute my point about laws sanctioning the death penalty as being unjust.[/q]

It refutes your point about the prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" enshrining a right to life, however.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Do you have any evidence that his views were NOT widely shared among that body of men who were in the COntinental Congress, wrote the state constitutions, or wrote the Federal constitution?

The Federal Bill of Rights has no protection for right to life within it. Certain states did, but by no means all of them. All the Federal Bill of Rights has is an exortation that the federal government has to go through process before it can take your life.

I wonder if the view was so prevalent among the colonies (that it need not have been said), why did some states feel the need to put that language in their state Constitutions?

The framers of the Constitution, including Madison, didnt think a Bill of Rights was needed, its provisions being obviously already taken care of, despite many state constitutions having bills of rights. Jefferson disagreed. Human beings are capable of disagreeing about what things are so obvious you can omit their mention, and when the obvious needs to be stated anyway.

[lord of the mark]

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the universe. "

John Adams

[lord of the mark]

interestingly enough, James Madison proposed the following

"The amendments which have occurred to me, proper to be recommended by congress to the state legislatures are these:

First.
That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration--That all power is orginally vested in, and consequently derived from the people.
That government is instituted, and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution. "


Does anyone know the history of why this amendment was not passed? Federalist objections?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The framers of the Constitution, including Madison, didnt think a Bill of Rights was needed, its provisions being obviously already taken care of, despite many state constitutions having bills of rights. Jefferson disagreed. Human beings are capable of disagreeing about what things are so obvious you can omit their mention, and when the obvious needs to be stated anyway.

You'd think freedom of speech and disestablishment would be obvious after what had just happened with Britain... yet it was specifically stated.

If they thought it THAT important and something the government need to take care of, they would have put it in. It's omission is telling. You will notice that there are plenty of protections for right to liberty in the Bill of Rights.

Furthermore, whether they wanted to put it in or not is irrelevent. They were forced to anyway.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


You'd think freedom of speech and disestablishment would be obvious after what had just happened with Britain... yet it was specifically stated.

You miss my point. Madison didnt want it in, originally, cause he thought it was obvious that the enumeration of specific powers to the federal govt excluded the varius things that the Bill of Rights banned. Jefferson didnt trust future generations and wanted it in. Now if Jefferson had not so insisted, and it had been left out, what would a textualist today say? Hed have to say, to be consistent with what you have said, that since there is no Bill of Rights, and since some state constitutions had them, ergo there were no such protections in the federal constitution. Hed have to ignore specific statements from Madison and other framers that those protections were implicit.

[lord of the mark]

The Rights of the Colonists
by Samuel Adams
The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting.
November 20, 1772

I. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.
Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.

All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.

When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.