Subscribe
Shop Local
Magazine
Gas Prices
Today's Poll!Missouri switch to propofol challenged
Friday, June 8, 2012
ST. LOUIS (AP) — As the Missouri Supreme Court decides whether to set execution dates for six condemned killers, attorneys for death row inmates are raising concerns about the state’s new one-drug lethal injection method.
Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster last month asked the state Supreme Court to set execution dates for up to 19 condemned men. Court records released Thursday to The Associated Press show the court has advised attorneys for six of those inmates that they have until June 29 to show why an execution date should not be set.
Attorneys for the inmates are citing a variety of concerns, but high on their lists is the new execution method.
Modern executions around the U.S. have used a nearly identical three-drug method — until recently. One drug, sodium thiopental, is no longer available because its maker won’t sell it for use in executions.
States have scrambled to find substitutes. Missouri announced in May the switch to a single execution drug, an anesthetic called propofol that has never been used in an execution in the U.S. It is the same drug that caused the overdose of pop star Michael Jackson in 2009.
Cheryl Pilate, the attorney for inmate Herbert Smulls, wrote in a filing to the Supreme Court that propofol has been known to cause extreme pain in some patients, even in normal doses. She wrote that the Missouri plan calls for a dose 15 times greater than normal, potentially increasing the risk of pain and suffering.
“It’s an untested protocol,” Pilate said in an interview. “It has not been used anywhere else. No one has ever done this.”
Pilate said different people react differently to propofol and there is no guarantee how it would work as an execution drug.
“We don’t know anything about the training they (executioners) receive,” she said. “We don’t know anything about the scientific research the state has done. We see nothing but the bare protocol itself.”
St. Louis attorney Richard Sindel made a similar argument on behalf of inmate David Barnett. Sindel did not return messages seeking comment.
Koster was unavailable for comment Thursday, spokeswoman Nanci Gonder said. He wrote in court filings the state is prepared and ready to proceed with executions.
But Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard Teitelman noted although news reports indicated the state had changed to a one-drug method, “neither the attorney general nor the (corrections) department has notified the Court of its adoption of a new protocol or the basis for such adoption.”
All six inmates facing potential execution dates were convicted of first-degree murder. In addition to Smulls and Barnett, they include Jeffrey Ferguson, Allen Nicklasson, Joseph Franklin and William Rousan.
Propofol, marketed as Diprivan, is made by AstraZeneca. Spokespeople for AstraZeneca and its U.S. marketer, APP, have declined comment on its use in executions.
Missouri is one of three states with a single-drug execution protocol. The others are Arizona and Ohio, but they are using a different drug.
Three other states — South Dakota, Idaho and Washington — have options for single- or multiple-drug executions, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. California and Kentucky are exploring a switch to a one-drug method.
Marry Me
Comments
X18020 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Use it . Use it now. Seriously, they are being executed for a reason. They have caused great pain so if they have to deal with some then so be it.
Silverado_Phil 11 months, 2 weeks ago
I totally agree!!! They ARE being executed for a reason.
cmnsense 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Yes, their "pain and suffering" would be over in a short amount of time, whereas the families of their victims will suffer forever.
JCLifer 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Good grief! Who cares? These liberal attorneys are trying to make it sound like the killers are the victims. Let 'em suffer.
gofish 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Time to go back to the gas chamber folks. You can mix a 5 gallon bucket of 2 common household chemicals that will snuff out a life in a matter of seconds. Fact is they won't live long enough to be in pain and the solution is 100% effective. Bunch of sissy's are worried about being in pain, which is just an excuse to thwart justice. Considering the pain their murder victim felt, I think it's high time the supreme court quit coddling these inmates.
Sequoia 11 months, 2 weeks ago
The legal standard is "no cruel and unusual punishment," not "their victims suffered pain, so they should suffer pain, too."
You guys are cool and tough for being so casual about someone else's suffering, though. I'm pretty impressed by the toughness of you action hero cowboys.
Lethal injection can be quite painful, but it looks placid because the condemned is paralzyed and unable to thrash or scream. Dying in a gas chamber is also quite terrible... you can feel your insides burning.
I think the least painful method is actually something like firing squad or guillotine, but it doesn't it doesn't look right to people.
Fact is that capital punishment is expensive and unreliable (as DNA testing has shown). There is just too much cost and risk of killing the wrong person.
gofish 11 months, 2 weeks ago
The gas chamber I'm proposing is so toxic to humans that it literally works to stop breathing within seconds and can be mixed so that ONE breath will do you in. A bullet to the head is cheaper but does not guarantee instant death. Especially if someone flinches.
spelchek 11 months, 2 weeks ago
"I'm pretty impressed by the toughness of you action hero cowboys." -- As I am impressed by your toughness to support abortion, nothing cruel and unusual about that.
spelchek 11 months, 2 weeks ago
"You can't devide [sic] your opinion on those two issues ...." -- Show me an unborn child that raped, tortured, mutilated, and murdered another life; then we'll talk.
JCLifer 11 months, 2 weeks ago
You think the Tea Party knows how God thinks? That is crazy talk.
Sequoia 11 months, 2 weeks ago
A prisoner on death row is a person. A human embryo, especially a pre-viable one, is not a person. Abortion may indeed be cruel and unusual, but it is not punishment.
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Throwing logic at this crowd is a thankless task. Good luck.
JCLifer 11 months, 2 weeks ago
A prisoner on death row should lose all their rights. Why do we coddle murderers?
Sequoia 11 months, 2 weeks ago
If a prisoner on death row can lose his rights, then they aren't rights.
I believe, as explained in the Declaration of Independece, that we are endowed with rights by our creator, not by the government. The constitution just protects the rights that God gave us against the government.
It is not easy to treat criminals as people. That's why the rights are written down. It is hard to do. That's why it is noble. But those rights are not the government's to "take away" for people we don't like. They belong to the person.
BTW, I hardly think that locking up with life in prison is "coddling."
Littleinvestor 11 months, 2 weeks ago
I had orthopedic surgery, using propofal. I woke up in the middle of the procedure. Sure freaked out the staff in the operating room, not to say me too. Studies have shown red-heads are more resistant to drugs like propofal than non-red-heads. Just my luck.
dokeus6 11 months, 2 weeks ago
"Lethal injection can be quite painful, but it looks placid because the condemned is paralzyed and unable to thrash or scream. Dying in a gas chamber is also quite terrible... you can feel your insides burning.
Have you survived both of these procedures or have you talked to someone who has?
Sequoia 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Witnessed a lethal injection once, did a fair amount of research on it as compared to other execution techniques.
Take the MSP tour and they'll tell you all you want to know about the gas chamber.
spelchek 11 months, 2 weeks ago
The state has taken innocent lives, that is a down right shame. More and more people are being freed because of DNA evidence. The state must be extremely diligent in it's investigations and prosecutions to ensure that the ultimate penalty is 100% deserved. Otherwise, I would like to see more stories of thwarted rapes, robberies, and home invasions by citizens exercising their 2nd amendment rights. Unfortunately, the left only wants the police state and criminals to own guns and depend on an admittedly broken / faulty system to carry out justice.
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Bad news sells, which is why we get lots of stories about the crimes that do happen. The extensive newspaper, television, and radio coverage of crime makes people believe crime happens a lot more often than it really does. If a gun in your nightstand makes you feel safe, you should have one.
There are already plenty of stories about thwarted rapes, robberies, and home invasions but they are just stories. The reason those heroic stories aren't in the newspaper very often is because it very seldom happens.
spelchek 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Agreed. You wait for help, I'll take care of my own, because crime hardly ever happens.
asb 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Statistically, the armed American citizen is no more likely to be eitherr a victim or to vanquish an armed crime than the unarmed. Most guns are used in the commission of crime, not defense against it. However, visible holster carry may well deter crime. So, if you're going to carry, show it.
asb 11 months, 2 weeks ago
In spite of what the NRA, FOX, Rush and the rest of the propaganda machine of the FRight would have you believe, very few on the left have issues with the 2nd amendment. Abuse of guns, and fetish-grade obsession with weapons is entertaining and embarrasing at the same time, but perfectly legal. The FRight's constant drumbeat of Obama's determination to disarm America discredits legitimate conservative values. Guns are fine, gun nuts are nuts,and gun rights are soundly in place in America, and alway will be.
spelchek 11 months, 2 weeks ago
"very few on the left have issues with the 2nd amendment." -- You lost me and all credibility right there. No need to read on.
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 2 weeks ago
I think asb was referring to the real second amendment, the one about a well-regulated militia and arms, meaning weapons. The current NRA interpretation in which everyone who wants any kind of guns should have them all bears no resemblance to the real second amendment. Credibility is always a relative thing.
TraceyT 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Tonto, do you mean the real second amendment where the "right of the people" to keep and bear arms is the same as the rights of the "people" in the first, fourth, fifth, and other amendments, but the "people" in this case means the government rather than the individual citizens? I guess you believe that the first amendment guarantess the right of free speech to the government as well, since the language is exactly the same...
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 2 weeks ago
The first amendment only guarantees "to the people" the right to peaceably assemble. The rest of the first amendment prohibits congress from enacting certain laws. I think you have confused yourself trying to get something surreal out of my comment. People means people. as in individual human beings - the Citizens United decision notwithstanding.
TraceyT 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Tonto, you're right, the language regarding "people" on freedom of speech isn't exactly the same, although it is widely understood to apply to the people. I should have looked up the text again and verified it. The language on 4th amendment language on unreasonable search and seizure is a better example, as it exactly matches. Regardless, it appears that I misunderstood your earlier post, as your later post seems to indicate that you do support every person (probably excluding, as the NRA does, felons and insane people) having any kind of gun they want.
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 2 weeks ago
I think that is a good interpretation of what I meant to say.
John 11 months, 2 weeks ago
You obviously have never read any of the "founding fathers" explanatory literature about why they wrote the 2nd Amendment. You know, the one about the ability of the PEOPLE, not the National Guard, to rise up against the oppressive government? The one where they will have to compete with government weapons (should it ever happen)? You mean THAT 2nd Amendment?
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 2 weeks ago
What we have for a constitution and laws is the language that can get enough votes for passage and ratification. It's how politics works, then and now. The first ten amendments that were adopted were specific, and the language that was adopted as the second amendment to the constitution was not Madison's original draft.
John 11 months, 2 weeks ago
You will do ANYthing to further your liberal agenda. The writers of the constitution have made it perfectly clear as to why they wrote amendments and what they were supposed to accomplish. Liberals, not being happy with that, decided to redefine and reshape their "interpretation" of the "living document" that changed with societal demands not needs. Washington, Adams, and the others warned of a government that might tax and tax too much. They wrote the 2nd amendment to allow society a way to rebel against the oppresive government.
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 2 weeks ago
I give you facts, and you start the name-calling.
You may have spent too much time reading Tea Party propaganda. The oppressive government of concern was Britain, and the ability to assemble a militia in case of emergency (the War of 1812 and the French and Indian War) was a big deal. The second amendment was never meant to enable cowboy fantasies about foiling home invasions and rapes and robberies, let alone dissolve a government that was so difficult to put together.
After the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the founding fathers were concerned about maintaining the integrity of a document that could provide a working government. They did not want to lose the consensus that had put the 1789 constitution together. At the time the first ten amendments to the constitution were adopted, the federalists had gotten unanimous votes - in most states - to adopt the 1789 constitution as it stood but the anti-federalists were a strong MINORITY in some key states. Some states had adopted the constitution with an understanding that individual liberties would be formally recognized.
The amendments were meant to keep all the states on board. The strategy worked, but now the Tea Party wants to re-arrange the facts.
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Any personal animus I may or may not have doesn't matter. The facts are not changed by anyone's feelings. I believe it is most important to read the actual wording that was adopted. A lot of hard work by brilliant and well-meaning people went into those documents. Wishful interpretation based on alternate versions that were discussed and discarded doesn't ever make for a good understanding of reality.
TraceyT 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Tonto, do you happen to have a good online source for Madison's orignal draft? The law that was passed by all of the representatives is the important part, but I would find it very interesting to read his original ideas.
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 2 weeks ago
TraceyT, Madison's original draft had quite a few ideas that would have been condensed into considerably more than ten amendments. I believe John would have that. Graceful might have it as well.
Most academic historians credit the founding fathers with creating a durable and strong government. Certain modern interpreters would like to disregard the actual working of the constitution and amendments in favor of debating points made and discarded in the drafting of the documents.
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 2 weeks ago
That was meant as an opportunity for you or John to provide some factual information. See the sources below, along with a discussion of the academic view of Madison's contributions. Briefly, Madison was more concerned with the state governments infringing on citizens' rights than the federal government. Recent events prove him right.
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 2 weeks ago
That was not my statement, it was Madison's.
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Two.
w w w.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html (spaces added) law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/billofrightsintro.html
The first is a word-for-word version from a right-wing source. It is the text of an address by Madison to the Congress and includes his statement that the people ought to be able to reform or change their government. (That statement was not adopted by the congress.)
The second is an academic report from the University of Missouri - Kansas City Law School regarding the development of the bill of rights, and includes a consideration of Madison's chief concern that the states would infringe on citizens' rights.
I have several other sources but these two are the easiest to work with.
I never post something I create myself without disclosing that. When I cite others; work, there is a reference for it but most people only want to argue about their own thoughts. References are useless to them.
John 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Ahhh, or they try to obfuscate it as you do by creating the strawman. It is interesting you leave out Thomas Jefferson advocating armed overthrow of the government if taxes ever exceed 1/2 percent.
There are numerous books at the library you would probably learn from. There are also many academc texts in which the founders and authors thoughts, understandings, and desires were codified. It is clear from all of them that the founders wanted a weak and limited government.
They wrote the 1st amendment to keep the government from vocal and written depression of those who would criticize government policies and oppression.
The 2nd amendment was meant to protect the citizenry from an oppressive government and its armed military (military and militia).
Tonto, you really do write and advocate the most ludicrous. For the rest of your American history lessons, please, do us all a favor, go to college.
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 2 weeks ago
You do not understand my point because it is very simple and very different from your opinion. The constitution and laws consist of the actual words that were adopted and ratified. No other words which the founding fathers, and all of the subsequent lawmakers, may have said or wrote or thought have that status.
John 11 months, 2 weeks ago
In other words, Grace; It is written in such a way that liberals may misinterpret it and they do not want to be bothered with the actual explanations, written by the authors. of what they menat in what they wrote. Short word for that: Obuscation.
spelchek 11 months, 2 weeks ago
85 million legal gun owners didn't murder anyone yesterday.
TraceyT 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Sure they count Hkchas, but (per the FBI Universal Crime Reports, fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls) there were 63740 murders in the years 2009 - 2010, compared to the 435 "people killed by concealed carry killers" since May 2007, per your VPC link, which probably includes self defense shootings. This means that out of 63740 murders, 0.0068% of them were committed by CCW holders. Based on the statistics, I would prefer to have a lot more CCW holders around than non-CCW holders.
TraceyT 11 months, 2 weeks ago
If I get killed, I won't care who shoots me, but the point is that it's extremely unlikely that it would have been a CCW holder. It's not reasonable to expect that having a permit from the government would magically make everone perfect and eliminate murder, but a statistical reduction of 99% is pretty good, and I would take it any day.
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 2 weeks ago
It's just math, TraceyT. There really aren't very many CCW holders. 85 millon is a SWAG for gun owners, with or without CCW.
asb 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Since most revolutions (our own in particular) are driven by the left, and with guns, I'll stand by what I say; most on the left don't have problems with the 2nd amendment. I didn't lose you, you're lost all on your own dude.
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Think again. Conservatives love the status quo or some imaginary idealized version of the past. The conservatives of the day were called "Tories" and they wanted to keep their colonial status.
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Sure - they were all white males adult property owners. Some of them owned slaves, too, but they accomplished something unique and lasting. Your comments make the founding fathers sound like teenagers that got grounded for bad grades.
dokeus6 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Have you read those numbers of books on the founding fathers Grace ?
Is that how you know so much about Economics, History and what the founding fathers were thinking when they forming the new Country. The American Revolution was all about being taxed without having any Representation in front of the King.
Yes it was personal. Very personal. The King was wanting to take money from the Colonies because of the wars that England was in and the Rich Traders and Merchants were not going to give them money to him. Sounds familiar doesn't it.
Some of us do know our history Grace. History always repeats it self. If we don't learn from it we are doomed just like the civilizations before us.
asb 11 months, 2 weeks ago
The left respects the founding fathers. It's the FRight that says otherwise and makes them and their ideas into something the left can take issue with.
asb 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Yes, the American revolutionaries were leftists. Hurts doesn't it. It may have been more turf war than ideological, but it gave the Brits fits for it's radical philosophical stance. It would be a right wing counter revolution today, but it was the first of the west's left moving, socialist revolutions, particularly compared to the family/church/embedded corporate system that was oppressing America. Remember Grace, we always move left, for thousands of years we've moved left. It's a response to our increasingly complex society and our greater knowledge. Only occaisionally does the right erupt like a Franco or the Golden Wave, or the Nazi's, or the teaparty; only to be devoured by knowledge and social need. You will ultimately lose, whether argument, elections, or war.
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 2 weeks ago
You have gotten confused again. The American and French revolutions happened about the same time and they were both about personal liberty. They had the same basic philosophy, resulting from the same abuses by royalty.
Socialism is about economic theory; specifically, the ownership and control of property and income.
Liberty and property are separate issues, but power is the means to control both.
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Then how is it that the Constitution and Bill of Rights spend so much of their language on individual liberties?
asb 11 months, 2 weeks ago
All three branches have stood behind the 2nd for all but the most extreme gun rights issues. I don't think Obama is any more likely to favor civilian truck mounted 50 caliber weapons than the Supreme court.
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Do we want our convicted murderers to die just like Michael Jackson? Should we try to get his doctor out of prison to help us with that? Why does that not sound like a good idea?
Listerine 11 months, 2 weeks ago
How many convicts has Mo carried out the death sentence on in the past 10 years? Why bother really. I support death sentence for pedophiles, they never change.
Sequoia 11 months, 2 weeks ago
I guess we're off the death penalty, but some of you are saying two contradictory ideas.
One one hand, you're saying that the constitution is not a "living document" and that we should interpret the constitution based on the interpretation that people had when it was written in the 1780s.
Then, on the other hand, you're saying we should have revolution every few years and re-write the constitution.
So, if we don't have the right to re-interpret the constitution based on the needs of the living (if we're going to chain ourselves to the dead), then why do you believe an actual arms-bearing revolution to overthrow the government and re-write the constitution is any more valid?
Given the choice, I would prefer intellectual revolutions rather than the physical kind.
The Constitution is a living document. We govern ourselves. We are not governed by dead men. Life belongs to the living.
John 11 months, 2 weeks ago
I did not see ANY posts about revolution to "rewrite the constitution." Again, you are building a strawman and trying to obfuscate the issues stated.
Sequoia 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Well, you argued earlier that your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that its purpose is to allow the people to keep arms so they can rebel against the government/military if the people feel it is necessary. So, you're saying that in your view the founders foresaw the possible need for armed citizen rebellion against the govt., and they justified it by writing the 2nd Amendment to preserve citizen weaponry for that purpose. (I guess by that logic we should all have stealth bombers, but leave that aside...)
Then, you said that we the people are not allowed to interpret the words of the constitution in light of the times we live in, but we must live with what the founders thought they meant. You said "liberals" want "a living document", and that's bad.
I guess I find it odd that, based on your interpretation of the Constitution, an armed citizen rebellion against the government (presumably to rewrite the constitution... why else?) is justified. But it is not justified if we interpret the phrase "cruel and unusual" to mean what we in 2012 think "cruel and usual" means, instead of what people in 1789 thought "cruel and unusual" meant at that time.
So, pick up a gun and overthrow the government? John says that it is contemplated by the 2nd Amendment. Debate what "cruel and unusual" means to we the people in 2012? Well, you can't do that! That's liberal!
Just sounds odd to me, that's all.
Feel free to tell me where I'm getting this wrong.
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 2 weeks ago
There you go again, with the logic. Good luck with that.
John 11 months, 2 weeks ago
There you go again, recreating, changing words around, writing untruths, and creating your straw man in order for you to support your untenable arguements.
YOU are the one (among several others trying to support your factually incorrect argement) who wrote YOUR INTERPRETATION of the constitution and several amendments. I simply wrote what the authors wrote -- that is not an interpretation. I would presume the authors know why they wrote something and what they meant in their writings. Such writings, in my estimation, far exceed your INTERPRETATION and those of the courts who would presume to change things around so as to fit into yours and their dreams for society.
Enough of this silliness, You and your cohorts will continue to malign, denegrate, and besmirch to founders of this country by forcing their words and documents to mean something they do not. You really should run for office, because you definitely fit in with the liberals and leftists who want to completely rewrite the constitution by purposefully quoting a document and then ignoring whazt the very authors wrote of their explanation.
Sequoia 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Where in the constitution do the founders explain what "cruel and unusual punishment" means?
Nowhere. It is nowhere in the constitution. If the founders wanted a specific meaning for "cruel and unusual," they would have put it in there. They didn't So, it is up to us to decide what those words mean. A court could rule the death penalty unconstitutional because it violates the ban on "cruel and unusual punishment," and that would be completely consistent with the words the founders wrote.
If you think that the death penalty MUST be constitutional BECAUSE the founders had the death penalty when they wrote the words "cruel and unusual punishment," and therefore the founders must not have thought the death penalty was "cruel and unusual punishment," and therefore we today cannot ban the death penalty because it cannot be "cruel and unusual" as the founders meant those words...
....then YOU'RE the one who is adding something to the constitution, not me. You're adding the phrase "according to standards are practices at the time the constitution was written" to the phrase "nor cruel and unusual punishments." I just want to look at what the words mean. It is not clear. It is up for debate. That's the beauty of the constitution.
Just like the phrase "unreasonable" in the fourth amendment. It was left undefined. Therefore each generation defines it as they see fit. Is a GPS device an unreasonable search? The founders didn't know. So we have to decide for ourselves.
I'm not sure why that is controversial or "leftist." It seems like exactly the way the founders intended.
The founders didn't want we the people to be ruled from beyond the Atlantic, so I doubt they wanted we the people to be ruled from beyond the grave.
dokeus6 11 months, 2 weeks ago
John Says "YOU are the one (among several others trying to support your factually incorrect argement) who wrote YOUR INTERPRETATION of the constitution and several amendments. I simply wrote what the authors wrote -- that is not an interpretation. I would presume the authors know why they wrote something and what they meant in their writings. Such writings, in my estimation, far exceed your INTERPRETATION and those of the courts who would presume to change things around so as to fit into yours and their dreams for society."
Isn't that what the courts are supposed to do, Decide the parts of the Constitution left to interpretation?
Is that why there are such things called precedents in law? If the judge determines that a person is guilty and the way the judges pass judgement on the law that was broken it becomes a precedent correct?
I'm sure Grace will correct me on this.
gofish 11 months, 2 weeks ago
I believe the people from the grave can do a far better job of ruling than the Missouri legislature.
Sequoia 11 months, 2 weeks ago
What do you mean? That place is full of vampire lobbyists and zombie public servants!
tonto_goldberg 11 months, 2 weeks ago
I don't think so. Vampires and zombies would starve to death there.
John 11 months, 2 weeks ago
There you go again with your straw man silliness. I never wrote that any of those things were in the constitution. I wrote that the founders and authors wrote in their explanations of what the intent was in the amendments.
Good grief, you and Tonto just love to state things that was never written. Your silly attempts at warping the document upon which this country was formed could be laughable if they were not so sorrowful.
As I wrote earlier. I have better things to do than joust with unamed enemies. You all have a blast misquoting, and tearing all of this up. . . .
Sequoia 11 months, 2 weeks ago
I'm just trying to find out where we disagree.
I guess we disagree as to the import of the founders' explanation of their intent. My view is that it is important, but not the last word. We have the last word.
Do you agree with that, or disagree? I'm not trying to set up a straw man, I'm trying to get you to commit to a position to determine whether or not we actually disagree.
You keep saying I'm setting up a straw man, stating things that weren't written and warping the document. It is hard to respond to that without an actual example of what you think the straw man is.
Don't tell me what I'm doing. Just refute my point or don't.
My point is that we have to interpret the constitution's words for ourselves. We don't need to be bound by what the founders thought they meant. We are bound by what they said, not what they thought they meant.
So, for this discussion, my point is that we must decide for ourselves whether execution is "cruel and unusual punishment." The fact that many of the founders thought execution was NOT cruel and unusual is important, but it is not the last word. We must decide for ourselves.
Either you agree with that or you don't. You've responded to me several times and I still can't tell whether you think history and tradition is the last word on constitutional interpretation or not. If you've got better things to do, then let's get to the point.
Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting
Or login with:
OpenID