After keeping him in prison for literally half his life, Georgia executed a 72 year old man.

[Uponthegears]

190. The future

of the death penalty is not a political issue.

It is a constitutional issue. It is no more up to a popular vote than the freedom of speech.

Your idea that the Constitution must be changed before the death penalty may be banned is unsupported by both the text of the Eighth Amendment, the text of the remainder of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court's obligation since Marbury v. Madison to, in the absence of plain language, interpret the words of the Constitution.

The Constitution neither allows, nor prohibits ANY specific method of punishment. There is no provision which states, "The death penalty is constitutional" and more than there is a provision which states, "10 years in prison is constitutional." Instead it provides a limit. What's more, it provides a limit which has no fixed definition. The words "cruel and unusual," by their nature, must draw their definition from some higher source. What is "cruel" for one society, may be perfectly acceptable in another.

Now the conservatives (the ones you look to for guidance) on the court USED to claim that these words should be defined to mean that whatever punishments were okay at the time of the framing were okay until the Constitution was amended (it's kinda like what you are trying to say). This idea had a couple of small (note sarcasm) problems . First, what language in the Eighth Amendment would need to be amended? Would the words "cruel and unusual" have to be changed to "crueler and even more unusual? It was just a silly idea (although one tightly embraced, until recent years by those legal geniuses -- note more sarcasm -- Scalia and Thomas). The second is that it would invalidate every single Commerce Clause case (because commerce would be limited in scope to what was commerce at the time of the founding AND their recent favorite Heller (because "arms would be limited to only those "arms" that existed at the time of the framing.)

Of course, as I explained in another reply, the conservatives, rather than admit that their prior reasoning was just result-oriented BS, came up with an new idea. I describe it at #177. That idea is almost as laughable. It goes like this . . . because the Framers imposed special rules for capital cases, capital punishment is automatically constitutional. With all due respect (i.e. NONE) for Scalia and Thomas . . . WTF, can you two be any more stupid and venal?

No, as much as you may wish the Constitution said something else . . . "cruel and unusual punishment" are defined by the evolving standards of civilized society. In other words, even with the will of the majority behind it, the death penalty is unconstitutional if it is contrary to the norms of a civilized society.

Now here's the last fun thing . . . At the time of the founding, there were no states and the colonies' standards of "cruel and unusual," the sources of the definition of those terms, were necessarily those of the nations which established the colonies.

Are you ready?

Question 1: Which nations founded the colonies?
Question 2: Do the standards in those countries permit capital punishment?

Do I hear the bell ringing?

Time to go.

* * *

Oh, oh, oh, your snide comment about the 14th Amendment exposes you as an opponent of those Supreme Court decisions protecting gay people's right to marry, contraception and choice (in part), one person one vote, and on and on and on . . .

"Democratic Underground" . . . you see that, right?