The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 3 of 20)

br> -- Glen Hoffing br> Camden, New Jersey /p> p> Nice argument, but that's the kind of policy that LEGISLATURES discuss. The SCOTUS was limited to deciding if it was "cruel or unusual" under the Constitution. You've fallen prey to the liberal mindset: "Tyranny is OK if I get what I want." br> -- Matthew Eckel, J.D. /p>

I agree in the main with Mr. Tucker's conclusion that the death penalty should be reserved for murder. (In the main, because what about treason during war?)

However, Tucker sidestepped the real question: what gives the Supreme Court the right to overturn a Louisiana statute regarding punishment of offenders? Presumably this statute was passed by the legislature of Louisiana, a duly elected body representative of the people of Louisiana.

Where in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the right to interfere in domestic matters involving crime and punishment? Cruel and unusual punishment (8th Amendment) is a limitation on the Federal government, not on the States. And even if it were a limitation on the States, it's primarily a limitation on the process of punishment (torture, drawing & quartering, etc.) prior to execution, not on the sentence itself.

p>Our country is no longer governed by the People (WE the People), but is instead government by five or six unelected judges, who through a spurious incorporation doctrine, continue to usurp the rights of the People to self-determination in the pursuit of happiness (and that includes making laws and punishments to effect that purpose). br> -- Vern Crisler br> Gilbert, Arizona

topics:
Trade, Barack Obama, Business, Federal Budget, Satire, Religion, Islam, Environment, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Iraq, NATO, Fascism, Conservatism, Libertarianism, Oil