Skip to comments.Death in a Courtly Manner
Posted on 03/03/2005 10:26:13 AM PST by Congressman Billybob
The Supreme Court has murdered the Constitution. It was a subtle murder with no blood visible. We know they did it because they left a coded confession, in the form of what appears to be a legal decision. Like many crime scenes, this one is deceptive, at first.
It looks like the Court simply decided the case of Roper v. Simmons, the juvenile death penalty case from Missouri. But a little C.S.I. investigation reveals the truth.
There are two deaths in this matter. The first was a woman who was kidnaped from her home by Christopher Simmons. He told his friends in advance what he was going to do. He bound her with duct tape and electrical wire, and threw her off a bridge alive and conscious. He also told his friends that they couldnt get the death penalty because they were juveniles. Street-savvy Christopher was seven months shy of his 18th birthday when he murdered Shirley Crook
When this case arrived in the Supreme Court, nineteen states including Missouri, had laws permitting the death penalty for defendants younger than 18 years old. Defendants, though their appointed counsel, could argue youth, inability, bad circumstances. But the ultimate decision rested with the jury. On the facts of this case, there is little doubt why the jury decided that Mr. Simmons was an appropriate candidate for death.
But the Supreme Court spared Mr. Simmons. It also spared at the same time Lee Malveaux (the 17-year-old Beltway sniper who terrorized the Washington area a few years ago). The Supreme Court decided that the Eighth Amendments prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment included the death penalty for juveniles. Of course, that Amendment meant no such thing when it was written.
And, but theres this little, tiny, problem with this decision. Just 15 years ago, the Court decided that the juvenile death penalty WAS constitutional. Furthermore, the Court did not even reverse its prior decision in patting Mr. Simmons on his tousled head today and sending him on his way. Now this sounds like the classic mystery the subject is dead, but all the doors and windows are locked.
So how did five Justices of the Court accomplish this feat?
Well, in the last 15 years the meaning of the Constitution changed, dont you see? And how was that magically accomplished?
First of all, there was nearly unanimous agreement of worlds other nations that juveniles should not be subject to the death penalty. (No mention was made of the fact that in many of these nations young children are turned into soldiers, or worked to death, or starved, or raped and discarded like trash.) The Court referred to a U.N. Treaty, which the US not only did not ratify, the US Senate passed a resolution stating why it would not ratify the treaty.
But mostly, the Court claimed that a new consensus was reached among the states. Where did it find this consensus? Four states decided to eliminate the death penalty for juveniles. Add those states to those which have no death penalty whatsoever (which of course has nothing to do with the tender youth of juveniles), and voila!, it is a consensus that only the keen eyes of certain Justices can perceive.
There IS a consensus process in the Constitution. In Article V it says in English so plain that even a senile Justice should be able to read it, that two-thirds of each House of Congress, followed by three-fourths of the state legislatures, are what it takes to amend the Constitution. Nowhere in that document is there the slightest suggestion that a bare majority of the Justices can substitute for the House, the Senate, and the state legislatures.
In short, the Court just killed the Constitution. No longer does the Constitution remain firm, and binding on everyone including the Court, until the people choose to amend it. Nope, its in the hands of the Court now, and it means no more or less than what any five Justices can agree to.
So, we have a corpse. Lying on the floor with a around its neck is the 216-year-old Constitution of the United States. We know that nine Justices of the Supreme Court were in the room when the victim died. They had motive, they had opportunity. And five of them stated in their confession that the Constitution had it coming.
Id say the answer is pretty clear. Book em, Dano.
About the Author: John Armor is a First Amendment attorney and author who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
John / Billybob
A couple of typos: Malvo was the suspect's name.
And this seems to be missing a word:
"Lying on the floor with a [missing word] around its neck is the 216-year-old Constitution"
Since these black robed thugs think the constitution is a "living" document meaning,it means whatever we say it means,and they look to cherry-pick international law to fir their radical neo-marxist outlook,then if they ignore the Constitution what`s stopping anyone from ignoring their opinion ?
It is only an opinion,mine woul be just as valid.Even more so since it would reflect the original intent of the Constitution.
Good read John. Thanks.
I'm guessing the defense will claim it wasn't murder, really, but euthanasia.
That sickly old thing had been wasting away for years. We just couldn't stand seeing the old girl suffer any more.
Had to put it out of its misery.
The as yet unanswered question is, since the sherrif has no balls, will the citizens form a posse or just grumble a little and go back to sleep.
They have put themselves in the impossible position of being in favor of only taking INNOCENT life.
thank you, sir!
That's what hurts the most.
Make sure you get the sniper's name spelled right, too.
It's just the 'french' version.
If you get the chance, read Scalia's dissent in this decision. Slices the majority to ribbons, or as I call them, the mushy moderate middle.
Found that in there. Nice read, though.
Considering that he's a believer in enumerated powers and a nonbeliever in legislating from the bench, this whole idea of "U.S. get in line with the rest of the world" must have enraged him.
In another forum, I re-read the facts of the Simmons case. I will relish what happens to this charming little sociopath when he is released from solitary and into the general prison population.
The really scary part is that Justice Sandra Dee O'Connor isn't against looking to other countries for guidance; she just wanted more evidence of the national consensus. So there are really six out of nine who are ready to follow European Law now -- ironic since they will likely not permit even a display of the X Commandments which actually are part of our legal and moral heritage.
SCOTUS has been avoiding the plain language of the Constitution for decades, but at least in the past they hid their dirty work behind penumbras and eminations. Now they just act like a mugger in broad daylight, as they have dropped any pretense of restraint.
Frankly, this decision is effectively a judicial coup d'etat. The only mystery remaining about our Republic is if it has a Chiquita label on it or not. We may still have a Congress and a President, but we have Nine El Presidentes for Life now.
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.