Posted on 04/28/2011 11:51:56 AM PDT by MintyHippo1980
A Facebook post by nephew Billy got me thinking today. He wrote, "If it's legal to get an abortion, it should be legal to abort a child molester. Just sayin'." It occurred to me that, since Governor Pat Quinn signed the legislation abolishing the death penalty on March 9, 2011, he established curious moral inconsistency, given his radical, enthusiastic support for another death penalty: Abortion. In the State of Illinois, an unborn human being who has never committed a crime can be executed, but due to the repeal of the death penalty here, Cecil S. Sutherland, who abducted, raped and murdered 10-year-old Amy Schulz of Kell, Ill., in 1987, now can't be executed. Paul F. Runge, who raped and murdered a woman and her 10-year-old daughter in their Chicago apartment in 1997, now can't be executed. Dion Banks, who shot a woman to death in front of her two young sons in a 2001 carjacking, now can't be executed. Daniel B. Ramsey, who shot to death two girls, ages 12 and 16, during an attack on his former girlfriend, now can't be executed. Eric Hanson, who murdered his parents, sister and brother-in-law in 2005, now can't be executed. Brian J. Dugan, who raped and murdered Jeanine Nicarico, 10, after abducting her from her Naperville home, now can't be executed. David A. Damm, who murdered 13-year-old Donnisha Hill, now can't be executed. Anthony B. Mertz, who murdered and mutilated Eastern Illinois University student, Shannon McNamara, 21, in 2001, now can't be executed. But, in Governor Quinn's pro-abortion, anti-death penalty moral economy, kill all the innocent unborn babies you want, but for goodness sake, DON'T execute bloodthirsty murders. The repeal of the death penalty means all of those murderers' sentences were commuted from death to life-without-parole with a stroke of Governor Quinn's pen, but with regard to little babies in the womb, Quinn supports legislation restoring abortion coverage under the state Medicaid plan. In addition, he supports legislation to repeal Illinois' 1995 Parental Notice of Abortion Law. Our Governor certainly dwells in a curious ethical universe. It's almost as if you're safer committing capital murder than you are being a developing human being inside your mother's uterus. Great googly-moogly.
Governor Quinn turns out to be a “cannibal” ~ are we to be surprised?
Quinn is an ass that should be run out of Chicago (the sewer of American politics) on a rail covered with hot tar and sticky feathers!
Chicago is a lousy city surrounded by a lousy state!
Quinn and his pals are not above stealing elections to perpetrate their crimes against honest citizens.
Our rights to petition the government for redress of grievances are all but gone.
It’s time!
A solution to many of our national problems, not just those created by power grabs by the presidents and congress, but the judiciary as well, might be relieved with a single constitutional amendment.
To explain the growth of the federal government via the federal judiciary is not often explained. But it represents a logical flaw in our constitution.
To start with, the US has about some 3,600 federal judges of all types. It is their responsibility to examine local, State and federal law, to look for unconstitutional problems. However, the founding fathers forgot to create some means, any means, for local and State laws to be returned to the States if there was *no* important constitutional principle at stake. Instead, once “federalized”, they remain “federalized”, which is a huge growth in federal judicial power, at the expense of the States and the people.
This problem is truly seen with the death penalty. At some point, some federal judge decided that *he* didn’t like hanging. So he “federalized” State law that used hanging as a means of execution, and then decided that it was unconstitutional. And once he had done this, the door was open to endless federal judges, who to this day, *whimsically* decide they know better than the States as to whether a criminal should even be executed AT ALL. After toying with the law for decades.
The way around this problem is to revitalize the power reserved for the States which was lost with the 17th Amendment, the direct election of senators. (Just repealing the 17th won’t happen, because the senators like not having to be responsive to their States.)
The new amendment creates a Second Court of the United States.
The Second Court is *not* a federal court, but is a mirror image of the original US senate, composed of two, State legislature-appointed judges from each State, whose terms are parallel with those of their US senators.
The Second Court is between the federal district courts and the Supreme Court of the United States. And unlike federal courts, that decide the constitutionality of laws, the Second Court determines the *jurisdiction* of cases that have been heard in lower federal courts.
That is, they will fill this constitutional gap, by being able to say that “despite constitutional arguments made in federal courts, this case is an issue to be decided in its State of origin, as the arguments made in these courts do not rise to federal authority to decide. Thus the case it remanded to its court of origin.”
This rebuts the whimsy of activists judges and takes the issue out of their hands. Thereafter, if a State wants to hang a condemned prisoner, even a child molester, it is free to do so.
Importantly, it matters how many State judges on the Second Court agree. If it is just a simple majority, the case should still be able to be appealed to the Supreme Court. But if 2/3rds (67) of these State judges are in agreement, then the federal government has no further say in the issue.
The one type of case that is original jurisdiction with the Second Court are lawsuits between any of the States and the federal government. Such as the federal lawsuit against Arizona over its anti-illegal alien law.
This would mean that the *first* court to hear this dispute is of the 50 States, not the federal government. So the advantage is theirs.
Now granted, if an individual State decided that it no longer wanted to execute murderers, that would be that State’s prerogative. But if it wanted to, and the other States agreed, it could hang them, electrocute them, gas them, or lethal inject them if it wanted to. And no federal judge could whimsically stand in their way.
A single constitutional Amendment: the creation of the Second Court of the United States.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.