.......................................................................
It seems that the legal profession has trouble with the English language.
That trouble was pictured by the words of Justice Thomas, in his concurring opinion that the court "had no difficulty concluding that death by firing squad" did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment.
The Cornell University law school had stated that, "The Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is not a per se violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment."
So it seems that Supreme Court judges and law school professors can't use the English language correctly, just as Mr. King couldn't, because that is not what the Eighth Amendment says. In Reporting the story leading to the court decision neither The New York Times or Los Angeles Times could use the phrase correctly.
The Eighth Amendment does not prohibit "cruel and unusual punishment," it prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments." The difference that "s" at the end of "punishment" makes is significant.
First: "cruel and unusual punishment" is not literate. The phrase "cruel and unusual punishments" indicates two types of punishment are prohibited; those that are cruel and those that are unusual. That means any punishment that is humane is allowed just as is any punishment that is normal for the offense. When someone uses the phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" he or she is trying to say "cruel-and-unusual punishment" but doesn't have the awareness to know the difference between multiple adjectives and compound adjectives. Judges, lawyers and law professors, as well as journalists, should know because their disciplines demand precise definitions and understanding of language. It's only a matter of mastering junior-high-school English to know that adjectives don't modify adjectives, therefore they have to be compounded with hyphens for that purpose, a lost American art.
In a recent interview on the television program 60 Minutes judge Scalia said that torturing prisoners during interrogation didn't amount to "cruel punishment' He was technically correct. The Eighth Amendment is an extension of the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments. all of which concern legal matters. The Fifth and Sixth pertain to criminal trials and the Seventh to civil trials. Not one of them specifies what sort of punishment is or is not approved following an adverse judgment so the Eighth Amendment covers the punishment aspect of all three amendments and since interrogation is not a conviction the Eighth's prohibition doesn't apply.
What would apply is the rejection of torture for any reason specified in various treaties the US is partner to.
Anthony Kennedy, in the 2005 opinion invalidating the death penalty for juveniles because it invoked international law (although it wasn't the basis for the ruling), relied on tests such as "evolving standards of decency" which is exactly what the Eighth Amendment is supposed to do. And the constitutional meaning of the word "cruel" is the meaning the present society holds, not the meaning given it in the 18th or 19th Century or at any other time.
VOTER ID LAWS
After the court accepted Indiana's voter ID law, reports arose around the state telling of people who were legal residents of the state prevented from voting in primary elections because they lacked "photo identification." Eight elderly nuns were prevented in one instance. That elderly nuns had no need for state-issued driver's licenses was of no consequences to those who support such voter-suppression measures.
Article I, Section 8, paragraph 18 of the United States Constitution specifies that laws are to be "necessary and proper," a constitutional requirement totally ignored by this court. Even in the despicable Plessy v. Ferguson decision that authorized "separate but equal" treatment the court ruled that government can't make a law just to harass others. But this is exactly what the Indiana law did. The court said in Plessy that, "every exercise of the police power must be reasonable, and extend only to such laws as are enacted in good faith for the promotion for the public good, and not for the annoyance or oppression of a particular class."
No voter-fraud case had ever been tried in Indiana, as even the law's proponents conceded, therefore the law was not necessary and should have been declared unconstitutional on that alone. And laws in Indiana and many other states that purposely disenfranchise thousands of Americans as this voter-ID craze promises are hardly proper nor reasonable and not enacted in "good faith". But the judges that McCain so adamantly admires totally ignored the Constitution and Supreme Court precedence in upholding a totally unnecessary law. And the court did so with the explanation that such voter-ID laws constitute only a "minor inconvenience," a statement absent from the Constitution.
It is strange and inconsistent that the court would refer back to 1879 and 1890 to find court precedents for definitions of cruelty in death-penalty cases but wouldn't go back to 1896 for a precedent that said laws are to be "necessary" or "in good faith" and promote the public good or many other statements in court decisions over the years that emphasize that government must have a "compelling interest" in making the laws that it makes.
GUN CONTROL
It seems that the legal profession has trouble with the English language.
That trouble was pictured by the words of Justice Thomas, in his concurring opinion that the court "had no difficulty concluding that death by firing squad" did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment.
The Cornell University law school had stated that, "The Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is not a per se violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment."
So it seems that Supreme Court judges and law school professors can't use the English language correctly, just as Mr. King couldn't, because that is not what the Eighth Amendment says. In Reporting the story leading to the court decision neither The New York Times or Los Angeles Times could use the phrase correctly.
The Eighth Amendment does not prohibit "cruel and unusual punishment," it prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments." The difference that "s" at the end of "punishment" makes is significant.
First: "cruel and unusual punishment" is not literate. The phrase "cruel and unusual punishments" indicates two types of punishment are prohibited; those that are cruel and those that are unusual. That means any punishment that is humane is allowed just as is any punishment that is normal for the offense. When someone uses the phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" he or she is trying to say "cruel-and-unusual punishment" but doesn't have the awareness to know the difference between multiple adjectives and compound adjectives. Judges, lawyers and law professors, as well as journalists, should know because their disciplines demand precise definitions and understanding of language. It's only a matter of mastering junior-high-school English to know that adjectives don't modify adjectives, therefore they have to be compounded with hyphens for that purpose, a lost American art.
In a recent interview on the television program 60 Minutes judge Scalia said that torturing prisoners during interrogation didn't amount to "cruel punishment' He was technically correct. The Eighth Amendment is an extension of the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments. all of which concern legal matters. The Fifth and Sixth pertain to criminal trials and the Seventh to civil trials. Not one of them specifies what sort of punishment is or is not approved following an adverse judgment so the Eighth Amendment covers the punishment aspect of all three amendments and since interrogation is not a conviction the Eighth's prohibition doesn't apply.
What would apply is the rejection of torture for any reason specified in various treaties the US is partner to.
Anthony Kennedy, in the 2005 opinion invalidating the death penalty for juveniles because it invoked international law (although it wasn't the basis for the ruling), relied on tests such as "evolving standards of decency" which is exactly what the Eighth Amendment is supposed to do. And the constitutional meaning of the word "cruel" is the meaning the present society holds, not the meaning given it in the 18th or 19th Century or at any other time.
VOTER ID LAWS
After the court accepted Indiana's voter ID law, reports arose around the state telling of people who were legal residents of the state prevented from voting in primary elections because they lacked "photo identification." Eight elderly nuns were prevented in one instance. That elderly nuns had no need for state-issued driver's licenses was of no consequences to those who support such voter-suppression measures.
Article I, Section 8, paragraph 18 of the United States Constitution specifies that laws are to be "necessary and proper," a constitutional requirement totally ignored by this court. Even in the despicable Plessy v. Ferguson decision that authorized "separate but equal" treatment the court ruled that government can't make a law just to harass others. But this is exactly what the Indiana law did. The court said in Plessy that, "every exercise of the police power must be reasonable, and extend only to such laws as are enacted in good faith for the promotion for the public good, and not for the annoyance or oppression of a particular class."
No voter-fraud case had ever been tried in Indiana, as even the law's proponents conceded, therefore the law was not necessary and should have been declared unconstitutional on that alone. And laws in Indiana and many other states that purposely disenfranchise thousands of Americans as this voter-ID craze promises are hardly proper nor reasonable and not enacted in "good faith". But the judges that McCain so adamantly admires totally ignored the Constitution and Supreme Court precedence in upholding a totally unnecessary law. And the court did so with the explanation that such voter-ID laws constitute only a "minor inconvenience," a statement absent from the Constitution.
It is strange and inconsistent that the court would refer back to 1879 and 1890 to find court precedents for definitions of cruelty in death-penalty cases but wouldn't go back to 1896 for a precedent that said laws are to be "necessary" or "in good faith" and promote the public good or many other statements in court decisions over the years that emphasize that government must have a "compelling interest" in making the laws that it makes.
GUN CONTROL
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
