[sarcasm]Ah, so it is illegal for any city to alter its boundaries in any way, since Tuskegee AL doing so in an effort to exclude every black former citizen of the city from the municipal boundaries was found to violate their constitutional rights?
[/sarcasm]
A law is constitutional when in form and application it conforms to every applicable constitutional requirement and is within the powers of the legislature adopting it; if it fails to meet these qualifications, it is unconstitutional.
To say “the death penalty is unconstitutional” or “the death penalty is constitutional” is, quite simply, an error of language. SCOTUS has held that a state may adopt a death penalty without violating the constitution under certain circumstances, and may not under others. In this particular case, the court in question found a violation of a citizen’s rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment, that right being the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses and refute their testimony.
However, this is clearly a part of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy to subvert all American values! :rolleyes:
december, if you’re making a joke you signal it: or something. Turning around and posting a message and link that moves the discussion from the specific legal issues of the OP case, to the old, tired, implication that opposition to capital punishment means support for “letting murderers go on murdering again”, makes it look like all along you were trying to trick us into that argument, rather than genuinely seeking to discuss when judiciary legislation is timely.
As to the decision… the preferred procedure is that the court finds the flawed law (or the flawed part of the law, if there is a severability clause) unconstitutional, and then the Legislative Branch acts to pass new law that does meet constitutional muster. Direct “Judiciary Legislation” does become necessary at times, but it really should be reserved for cases of compelling urgency, or as a stopgap until the Legislature acts.
I am sick of being regarded as someone who is prepared to let all that is regarded as right in this society go down the drain, simply because I speak out for the right to use one’s mind freely and for the freedoms enshrined in our national foundational documents. By his link december implied that everyone who might oppose capital punishment or even wish it to be imposed only in accordance with procedural law (which would include the overwhelming majority of judges) is espousing the supposed right of convicted murderers to go free and repeat their crimes. I consider this a grave insult to myself and to the various people who have posted to this thread, including several competent lawyers who attempted to explain the intracies of the law as regards capital punishment (my thanks to them for doing so).
I had not intended to post in this thread again, but I do appreciate your setting forth irenically that explanation, JRDelirious, and I did want to acknowledge it.
polycarp, to put your mind at rest, I wasn’t intending to imply what you thought I was. I simply used poor judgment and hijacked my own thread. I regret the hijack and I regret creating the perception of an insulting post.
or something. Turning around and posting a message and link that moves the discussion from the specific legal issues of the OP case, to the old, tired, implication that opposition to capital punishment means support for “letting murderers go on murdering again”, makes it look like all along you were trying to trick us into that argument, rather than genuinely seeking to discuss when judiciary legislation is timely.