The 10th amendment was precisely engineered to forestall conservative arguments against "creating new rights", when in fact, rights exist whether or not they are found in current law, so "creating new rights" is entirely appropriate and legitimate in the representative democracy. That is, the people tell the government what rights they have, not the other way around.
Er, that's the 9th Amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Tenth is actually supposed to be about limited government, not rights.
Capital punishment is an utter and unmitigated evil. It amounts to giving the government the power of death over its subjects, such should not be countenanced by any civilized society. It never has deterred crime, and it never will deter it. And incidentally, the 1850s were marked more by one half of the country abusing the Feds' power over the other half and then getting butthurt when what they did to that half got turned on them.
Capital punishment is an utter and unmitigated evil. It amounts to giving the government the power of death over its subjects, such should not be countenanced by any civilized society.
The government already has the power of death over its subjects. It’s done with the military whether it is voluntary or by draft.
I’m fairly neutral on the death penalty. There are people that must be removed from a society for the protection of the society. Whether the method of disposal is the death penalty or spending the remainder of their life in incarceration with no effort or chance of rehabilitation; makes no difference to me.
Having been on life support and unaware of my own existence for a period of time, I no longer really fear death as most people do. To me quitting life is kind of like quitting smoking. Once you get over the withdrawal symptoms, the rest is easy.
I fail to see why the level at which murder is outlawed matters. Every state outlaws murder, and every state's definition covers these mass murders that you're worried about. I'm going to guess that most mass-murderers don't really care about punishment, since it's obvious that wherever you are, you're doing something illegal when you unload an assault rifle into a crowd. Care to expand on that point?
Now, if you were to have a flat federal murder law, what you'd actually be seeing is a transfer of general police power to the federal government, which is a far more significant change than your post lets on. The reason for those exceptions you mention is because those exceptions place the act within the federal government's limited bailiwick. Now, if you'd really like to overturn the federal, dual-sovereignty model, then be my guest. Let's just not pretend that what we're doing is small potatoes.
I fail to see why the level at which murder is outlawed matters. Every state outlaws murder, and every state's definition covers these mass murders that you're worried about. I'm going to guess that most mass-murderers don't really care about punishment, since it's obvious that wherever you are, you're doing something illegal when you unload an assault rifle into a crowd.
It could give the feds the teeth they need to avoid something like this once they are able to identify it. I am not talking about an all-or-nothing approach to violence. I believe this can be for the most egregious cases of mass murder. This would allow federal resources to track and even infiltrate this on a nationwide basis.
Now, if you were to have a flat federal murder law, what you'd actually be seeing is a transfer of general police power to the federal government, which is a far more significant change than your post lets on. The reason for those exceptions you mention is because those exceptions place the act within the federal government's limited bailiwick.
( ... )
The problem is, your theories are not backed by current legal reality. The US government has no general police power, period. The states do. There are some areas where they are co-sovereign, and some where they are exclusive. You might not like this, but it is the truth. The states are indivisible members of the Union, as demonstrated by the Civil War, but this doesn't mean that they do not have their own powers from a separate source than that claimed by the federal government.
The Supremacy Clause certainly does trump state power, but only in areas where the Constitution grants the federal government power. This is the basic premise of Marbury v. Madison and the foundation of our modern legal system - that the federal government cannot act in contravention of the Constitution which grants it its powers. The Supremacy Clause emphatically does not mean that the federal government is supreme in all areas all the time. If you think that, it's you who are the "armchair Constitutional quarterback," with all the ignorance that implies.
The problem is, your theories are not backed by current legal reality. The US government has no general police power, period.
The federal government has full police powers to enforce and investigate federal crimes. This explains the existence of the FBI, Federal Marshals and Homeland Security.
You might not like this, but it is the truth. The states are indivisible members of the Union, as demonstrated by the Civil War, but this doesn't mean that they do not have their own powers from a separate source than that claimed by the federal government.
Which is exactly what I said. States are granted power by the Constitution just like the federal government does. However, the Supremacy Clause states that federal laws are the laws of the land regardless of state laws and requires state judges to be ruled by them as well. Once again, states do not have sovereignty of any kind. Look the word up. I did.
This is the basic premise of Marbury v. Madison and the foundation of our modern legal system - that the federal government cannot act in
( ... )
I would first concentrate on what might be causing the trend toward mass slayings in our history, and note what other countries do when that happens (especially northern European ones).
Which northern European states would those be? Scandinavia hasn't as a rule had that many problems with mass slayings, after all, the UK happens to have a completely different set of issues from other European states. Russia, of course, has full-scale civil wars and an evident tendency to attack its neighbors but as it's not the USA it gets a free pass on everything up to and including leveling cities with carpet bombing.
Comments 27
Reply
Reply
Reply
Capital punishment is an utter and unmitigated evil. It amounts to giving the government the power of death over its subjects, such should not be countenanced by any civilized society.
The government already has the power of death over its subjects. It’s done with the military whether it is voluntary or by draft.
I’m fairly neutral on the death penalty. There are people that must be removed from a society for the protection of the society. Whether the method of disposal is the death penalty or spending the remainder of their life in incarceration with no effort or chance of rehabilitation; makes no difference to me.
Having been on life support and unaware of my own existence for a period of time, I no longer really fear death as most people do. To me quitting life is kind of like quitting smoking. Once you get over the withdrawal symptoms, the rest is easy.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Now, if you were to have a flat federal murder law, what you'd actually be seeing is a transfer of general police power to the federal government, which is a far more significant change than your post lets on. The reason for those exceptions you mention is because those exceptions place the act within the federal government's limited bailiwick. Now, if you'd really like to overturn the federal, dual-sovereignty model, then be my guest. Let's just not pretend that what we're doing is small potatoes.
Reply
I fail to see why the level at which murder is outlawed matters. Every state outlaws murder, and every state's definition covers these mass murders that you're worried about. I'm going to guess that most mass-murderers don't really care about punishment, since it's obvious that wherever you are, you're doing something illegal when you unload an assault rifle into a crowd.
It could give the feds the teeth they need to avoid something like this once they are able to identify it. I am not talking about an all-or-nothing approach to violence. I believe this can be for the most egregious cases of mass murder. This would allow federal resources to track and even infiltrate this on a nationwide basis.
Now, if you were to have a flat federal murder law, what you'd actually be seeing is a transfer of general police power to the federal government, which is a far more significant change than your post lets on. The reason for those exceptions you mention is because those exceptions place the act within the federal government's limited bailiwick. ( ... )
Reply
The Supremacy Clause certainly does trump state power, but only in areas where the Constitution grants the federal government power. This is the basic premise of Marbury v. Madison and the foundation of our modern legal system - that the federal government cannot act in contravention of the Constitution which grants it its powers. The Supremacy Clause emphatically does not mean that the federal government is supreme in all areas all the time. If you think that, it's you who are the "armchair Constitutional quarterback," with all the ignorance that implies.
Reply
The problem is, your theories are not backed by current legal reality. The US government has no general police power, period.
The federal government has full police powers to enforce and investigate federal crimes. This explains the existence of the FBI, Federal Marshals and Homeland Security.
You might not like this, but it is the truth. The states are indivisible members of the Union, as demonstrated by the Civil War, but this doesn't mean that they do not have their own powers from a separate source than that claimed by the federal government.
Which is exactly what I said. States are granted power by the Constitution just like the federal government does. However, the Supremacy Clause states that federal laws are the laws of the land regardless of state laws and requires state judges to be ruled by them as well. Once again, states do not have sovereignty of any kind. Look the word up. I did.
This is the basic premise of Marbury v. Madison and the foundation of our modern legal system - that the federal government cannot act in ( ... )
Reply
1) They have yet to figure out how to snare squirrels for dinner.
2) They are deathly afraid of other rustics with guns.
As far as tribalism goes, corporatism is the new tribalism.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment