Two or Three (.net)

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. - Jesus

3.01.2005

Who makes US law?

by Aaron Earls [+/-] show/hide

Well, the Supreme Court has once again decided that it is not the Constitution or even the American people; it is their own opinions backed up by international law. They have outlawed the death penalty for people under 18.

Whether you support the death penalty or not, regardless of where you stand on this issue as it pertains to juveniles, it should be agreed that the Supreme Court made the wrong decision based on the wrong foundation. I dare not wade into the waters of that issue, but the Supreme Court should not be able to, regardless of the case, force their opinion, based on international law and opinion, on the whole of America. They are to decide simply what is constitutional and what is not. I do not see how one can determine juvenile death penalty by the Constitution, therefore it should be left up to the states, upholding the foundational doctrine of federalism.

Mirroring the reactions to news of democracy spreading across the Middle East, this issues has garned much attention across the right-side of the blogosphere. Evangelical Outpost, In the Agora, Powerline and The Corner all have dealt with this topic today. In contrast the only high profile left-wing blog to mention the ruling (as of this writing) was Kos and it was a brief "attaboy."

The 5-to-4 decision holds that the juvenile death penalty violates "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society," The ruling also acknowledged "the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty." So the basis for the ruling is "evolving standards" and "international opinion"? What ever happened to the Constitution?!?

Scalia, as always, holds the Court's feet to the fire in his blazing dissent:
The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards--and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent.


Update: You can find more of my opinion and more facts about this ruling here, including a link to examples of the crimes these "children" committed.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment