Sheldon, too.
This is the new dumbest hypothetical I’ve ever seen posted here. There is no lawful authority for this supposed “election” or execution.
+1
If you had posed this question hundred years ago in many parts of the south, the answer would have been yes, with the underlying assumption that Leonard was black. Since then we have accepted that this was a shameful part of out history, and that mere popular antagonism towards an individual was insufficient to justify their execution by mob rule.
But not Nurse Chapel. I like her.
I’d say ethical, not moral. Lot of laws enforcing “morality” were passed because the majority was convinced that God wanted it. When we moved to an ethical and not religious basis for laws these laws got junked, and we (or at least some of us) decided that we didn’t give a shit about what God wants unless he shows up to tell us.
I think you’ve found yourself a distinction without a difference there. From the OED:
*Ethics: The branch of knowledge or study dealing with moral principles
Morality: The branch of knowledge concerned with right and wrong conduct, duty, responsibility, etc.; moral philosophy, ethics.*
Seriously, the most substantial difference between “ethics” and “morality” is that one word has a Greek root, the other a Latin.
There is a prohibition against punishing a person in cruel and unusual ways.
Leonard is not being punished any more than an 18 year old boy who is drafted into the army and sent on a suicide mission.
The Supreme Court generally does not view itself as having the right to make an opinion on the merit of an argument. If Congress says that bubble gum causes civil unrest and they want to ban it on that basis, the Supreme Court will generally not ask for proof that bubble gum does cause civil unrest, they will simply verify that there was a governmental purpose served by the law. And, similarly, if the White House says that all red heads in the country are plotting an uprising and need to be interned, current Supreme Court opinion is that all the red heads have to go to an internment camp and the White House does not need to prove its case that this was a legitimate fear, merely that their purpose served a governmental purpose.
This is how the Travel Ban ended up being accepted by the Court.
While it is certainly possible that the Supreme Court would decide that having Leonard killed, simply to prove the government’s fidelity to the will of the people, is not a legitimate government purpose or that the penumbra of the Bill of Rights would have us hold that Leonard’s unstated right to life exceed this governmental purpose, I am not currently aware of a “general right to be alive” clause and the closest case on the subject that I can think of is Roe v Wade…which chose the other direction.
There are posters who have, on a variety of topics, stated things along the lines that the will of the people - popular votes, etc. - should take precedence over the votes of a small group of people in Washington.
From what I have seen, it’s fairly common in law to use edge cases to demonstrate that certain laws or views of the law are insane if you follow them to their logical conclusion. With Presidential immunity, for example, we might say that the President needs an amount of immunity in order to be able to do his job. But, following that rule blindly would get us to the place where the President can shoot someone dead, in the middle of the street, and he couldn’t be held accountable for it. The general principal is clearly not an absolute and any world view that treats it that way is, similarly, a feat of madness.
I’ll go a few more tries at arguing the case and, presuming that I fail to get traction, fall back to a less extreme case and see if there’s an argument to be made at that level. I’m narrowing in on the cutoff point.
Indeed. They had brakes like:
- Only allowing land-owners to vote. Today, we might view this as being similar to if we only allowed college graduates to vote.
- Putting the election of Senators into the hands of state representatives - i.e., selected as someone to be trusted by a group of people whom the people had voted that they trusted.
- Ensuring that the President is not elected by popular vote.
I will note that the modern view was that they completely wrong on 1 and 2, and probably wrong on 3.
We have largely removed the brakes. Was that wrong?
”Oh, so you don’t want to have a national vote on randomly killing an American for no reason at all? Then I guess I’ve proven the wisdom of having a handful of elected representatives deciding to kill a random American citizen for no reason at all! Suckers!”
I understand you intent here, but the scenario is a total misfire.
Hmmm
The government upholds the laws. In our system, in theory, we have the means to change our laws if we do not like them. Random executions (by vote or not) are not legal.
Indeed.
It’s a hard problem. (And no, those quotes are not in conflict with one another.)
These things weren’t designed as brakes. They had no effect in slowing down legislation or making people more deliberative.
They were designed to maintain the interests of a minority over the interests of the majority.
Nice dodge to avoid my point.
Your entire scenario rests on a declaration that a president can call for a plebiscite on an issue. There is no provision for such an action in the Constitution.
Dude. I’m right here.
Whatever you say chief, it’s your chicken, I’m just gonna hold the wings.
Seems to me the thought problem breaks down right here:
“they simply want to prove that the government will act in accordance with the public will.”
Well, that’s nice. Who asked them to prove that, or how was it demonstrated that the public had reason to doubt the White House (or actually more appropriately, the entire government, as they are considered co-equal tripartite entities) does NOT act in accordance with the public will? Before we kill Lenny, the “will of the people” must first make manifest its belief that the government does not, in fact, act in accordance with the public will. In the system in place in the U.S., via majority vote of the elected representatives, with the result validated by the judicial branch, it might be eventually determined that, yes, the public does not believe the government acts in accordance with the public will. Once (if) the public will’s absolute concern that the government does not act in accordance is thus established, it would then be necessary via the same process to determine that the public’s will is that there must be some test of the government’s willingness to act in accordance with said public will, or, as an alternative, to just continue to put up with the government NOT acting in accordance with the public’s will (Duh!). Assuming the will of the people is that there is a inescapable need for some valid and reliable test that would demonstrate the government’s actions do, in fact, make manifest the will of the people, the public will must then express its preferred mechanism by which the government would offer proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it DOES, in fact, act in accordance with the public will to the extent that the public will deems the results satisfactory for said purpose (that the government acts in accordance with…). Many, many different mechanisms might be proposed and debate surely ensue (I, for one, would propose sacrifice by self-immolation as an adequate, even desirable demonstration of fealty to the public will), which would (eventually) lead once again to selection of a “public will concordance validation” that would only be deemed adequate via the result of a vote of said elected representatives with validation, yada yada. If all that results in a death lottery that Lenny loses, well, OK, so be it. I find us voting on who stays in power on a regular basis to be a much more acceptable mechanism, (a point which I am sure Lenny shall agree with) as well as having the bonus of already being in place- and producing government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
As thought problems go, this one just seems to be a remake of “The Running Man”; Arnold’s gonna be a hard sell as a dude named “Lenny”.
Not exactly; at least not directly anyway. Even if the popular will was to have someone murdered, that doesn’t really matter; as a rule of law nation, that popular will would run afoul of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
Leonard would have to be indicted, tried and found guilty of something worthy of capital punishment before he could be executed, regardless of what some random referendum might say.
And I also point out that regardless of any referendum to the contrary, there’s a defined legal procedure for amending the Constitution as well, so it’s not like the popular will could just amend the Constitution to allow them to murder Leonard either.