The right to life and constitutional law.

[MrFun]

Maybe I need to go back and read ALL of the posts again, if this question has already been answered.


But according to Imran, there is no such thing as violation of right to life when someone murders another person in our legal system. So then, what violation occurs, according to states' laws against murder, when someone does commit a murder? What then, is the violation when a citizen illegally kills another citizen?

I would like to find out if there are some lawyers would agree with political scientists who claim that the DOI is indeed part of our organic laws.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"Laws
For most of the history of the United States, lynching was rarely prosecuted, and when it was, it was under state murder statutes. In one extraordinary example in 1907-1909, the Supreme Court tried its only criminal case in history, 203 U.S. 563 (U.S. v. Sheriff Shipp). Shipp was found guilty of criminal contempt for lynching Ed Johnson in Chattanooga.

Starting in 1909, over 200 bills were introduced to make lynching a federal crime, but they failed to pass. During the Roosevelt administration, the Civil Rights Section of the Justice Department tried, but failed, to prosecute lynchers under Reconstruction-era civil rights laws. The first successful federal prosecution of a lyncher for a civil rights violation was in 1946, and by that time, the era of lynchings as a common occurrence was over."

Yeah, this is one of our dark "chapters" in American history. LoTM, have you ever seen the photographic, illustrated book called Without Sanctuary? I have this book -- very revealing in Americans' past cruelty towards black people.

[Kidlicious]

Pwned, and pwned.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The question is if the govt refuse to protect you against murder, do you have a claim against the govt for that failure.

The Supreme Court has already heard cases on this and has ruled you cannot sue the state for not protecting you:

Deshaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services

But nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security. It forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law," but its language cannot fairly be extended to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means. Nor does history support such an expansive reading of the constitutional text. [p196] Like its counterpart in the Fifth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prevent government "from abusing [its] power, or employing it as an instrument of oppression," Davidson v. Cannon, supra, at 348; see also Daniels v. Williams, supra, at 331 ("to secure the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government," and "to prevent governmental power from being ‘used for purposes of oppression'") (internal citations omitted); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 549 (1981) (Powell, J., concurring in result) (to prevent the "affirmative abuse of power"). Its purpose was to protect the people from the State, not to ensure that the State protected them from each other. The Framers were content to leave the extent of governmental obligation in the latter area to the democratic political processes.

Consistent with these principles, our cases have recognized that the Due Process Clauses generally confer no affirmative right to governmental aid, even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual. See, e.g., Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 317-318 (1980) (no obligation to fund abortions or other medical services) (discussing Due Process Clause of Fifth Amendment); Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 74 (1972) (no obligation to provide adequate housing) (discussing Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment); see also Youngberg v. Romeo, supra, at 317 ("As a general matter, a State is under no constitutional duty to provide substantive services for those within its border"). As we said in Harris v. McRae:

Although the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause affords protection against unwarranted government interference, . . . it does not confer an entitlement to such [governmental aid] as may be necessary to realize all the advantages of that freedom.

448 U.S. at 317-318 (emphasis added). If the Due Process Clause does not require the State to provide its citizens with particular protective services, it follows that the State cannot [p197] be held liable under the Clause for injuries that could have been averted had it chosen to provide them. [n3] As a general matter, then, we conclude that a State's failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause.

Btw, the court didn't rule that the State's failture to protect and individual against private violence violated any 'right to liberty' either.

[q=MrFun]So then, what violation occurs, according to states' laws against murder, when someone does commit a murder? What then, is the violation when a citizen illegally kills another citizen?[/q]

Um... violation of the state's law perhaps?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The question is if the govt refuse to protect you against murder, do you have a claim against the govt for that failure.

The Supreme Court has already heard cases on this and has ruled you cannot sue the state for not protecting you:

Deshaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services

"REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined, post, p. 203. BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 212. [p191] "


6-3. Justice Blackmun's dissent goes father than Justice Brennan's, and is relevant to the issues we are discussing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's nice, but the fact remains that you don't have a claim for murder against the government according to the majority opinion (due to lack of state action), as Rehnquist said, that is left to the "democratic political processes".

After all, Blackman's dissent was simply that, a dissent (as in not the majority opinion).

MrFun's question was and remains, do we have a legally protected right to life as expounded in the DoI. The Supreme Court is ultimate arbitrer of what is or is not legal and it has rejected calls to include the DoI into the laws of the United States.

[lord of the mark]

"The Framers were content to leave the extent of governmental obligation in the latter area to the democratic political processes. "

IE The framers didnt envision that any concievable govt wouldnt give at least de minimus protection to life, liberty, and property, and they allowed the democratic process to determine the extent of that protection. Between 1789 and 1868 it became clear that states could and would grant de minimus protection to SOME classes of citizens, and refrain from giving it to others. This was dealt with explicity through the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Apparently they continued to beleive that no state would deny these rights to ALL citizens. Now one could argue that the framers of the 14th amendment were concerned about rights being denied to certain groups of citizens, but didnt care about the denial of such rights to all citizens. One can also take legal formalism to the point of absurdity. It may well be that the current SCOTUS has in fact done so.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That's nice, but the fact remains that you don't have a claim for murder against the government according to the majority opinion (due to lack of state action), as Rehnquist said, that is left to the "democratic political processes".

After all, Blackman's dissent was simply that, a dissent (as in not the majority opinion).

MrFun's question was and remains, do we have a legally protected right to life as expounded in the DoI. The Supreme Court is ultimate arbitrer of what is or is not legal and it has rejected calls to include the DoI into the laws of the United States.

We dont have a right to life, cause the Constitution has been hijacked by right wing judges.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Please show me where in the Constitution it says there is a right to life. All I see is where it says the government can't take away you life, liberty, and property, unless they go through due process, ie, they have to take you to a court to do it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Please show me where in the Constitution it says there is a right to life. All I see is where it says the government can't take away you life, liberty, and property, unless they go through due process, ie, they have to take you to a court to do it.

I think we've been through this already. I looked to the intentions and purposes behind the 14th amendment, and looked at the entire political philosophy underlying the framing of the Constitution. If you beleive that all of the above is irrelevant to interpreting whats within the four corners of the document and you insist on that kind of formalism, I cant help you.

Alli can say is if i left my daughter a note saying not to kill the cat, and she went and let the cat die in the cold, and didnt open the door for the cat to come in, and when I asked why she didnt follow my instructions, she responded that nowhere in my note did it say she had to rescue the cat - well if she did this repeatedly id have her examined for Aspergers. Apparently this kind of literalism, and inability to look at larger context and purpose, is now an accepted constitutional legal doctrine.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Um... violation of the state's law perhaps?

But what's the purpose of states' laws against murder then? It's not meant to protect any fantastical right to life, as you claim. So why do states make murder illegal?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by MrFun
But what's the purpose of states' laws against murder then? It's not meant to protect any fantastical right to life, as you claim. So why do states make murder illegal?

States' laws against murder are not Constitutional rights. It wouldn't even be a statutory right, because individuals don't have a right to sue for murder per se. Rather, criminal prosecution is left up to government prosecutors.

The most an individual could do to defend the "right to life" would be to bring an action for wrongful death...which is was the civil suits against OJ and Beretta were all about.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MrFun
But what's the purpose of states' laws against murder then? It's not meant to protect any fantastical right to life, as you claim. So why do states make murder illegal?

Why do states make homosexuality illegal?

Is it because of some 'right'?

[q=Lord of the Mark]Apparently this kind of literalism, and inability to look at larger context and purpose, is now an accepted constitutional legal doctrine.[/q]

For the most part throughout US history it has been. The US Constitution only gives the federal government power to act when it explicitly states it. It's a part of this whole limited government thing.

If you want a natural law system, make one yourself.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Why do states make homosexuality illegal?

Is it because of some 'right'?

You misunderstand me. If the states' laws against murder were not enacted in the interest of protecting any natural human right then the motivation for laws against murder are ulterior.

It's in the interest of state governments to foster stable, functioning society -- if it just so happens that laws against murder protects the majority of people, then it's merely an inadverdent consequence of such laws against murder.

In other words, based on your arbitrary, overtly-literalist argument, you find it perfectly morally acceptable that state governments can completely disregard natural rights such as right to life simply because it's not explicitly written in our U.S. Constitution and because we allow for legitimate or controversial exceptions (execution of felons, aerial bombing in time of war, self-defense).

This is why I have difficulty swallowing your texualist argument and I would be very much interested in hearing about other lawyers who have a different viewpoint from yours.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Um, Odin you might want to read up in the thread. The whole concept of 'organic' rights is that there are rights that are given to us by God, and not society. You are free to deny the existence of such right, but that doesn't preclude you from understanding that it is not the law itself that would grant 'organic' rights.

Rights are granted by society and ONLY by society (which in a modern, democratic, common law country means the constitution, the government, and the courts). I deny the existance of "God given rights" because they don't exist, it's metaphysical nonsense.