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 couldn’t 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 Amendment’s 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 there’s 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, don’t you see? And how was that magically accomplished?
First of all, there was nearly unanimous agreement of world’s 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, it’s 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.
I’d 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
In law, the premise may be absurd, or impossible. But all that follows from the premise much be logical. For instance: assume the premise that the sun rises at noon in New York in June. Then the correct answer to the question, when is lunchtime, is 6 p.m. LOL.
Once you get over the pesky idea that truth exists, law becomes a piece of cake to those trained in engineering.
Congressman Billybob
Always a pleasure sir. Regards...
What you've said.
I vote we posse up and go after them.
When the civil disobedience comes and everyone is running around asking, "WHY?", remember this decision and the sodomy decision and the millions of criminal aliens that have so easily waltzed into our country.
Folks are getting fed up!
My prediction....just grumble a little and go back to sleep.
When I read that comment about the opinons of other nations, I thought I must be reading the Declaration of Independence.
Then I realized that indeed I was reading exactly that: the Supreme Court's declaration of independence from the constraints of precedent, legislation and the Constitution.
The missing word is probably "noose"
yeah, why aren't they kowtowing to some of the harsher things found in international, but not american, law? such as a much abbreviated "due process"? at least you would think these yokels would be consistent.
Slam dunk, Congressman Billybob!
I sent you a congratulatory email. Bump for later.
.....judicial tyranny...
Precisely correct phrase.
Rule by tyrants was tried and found lacking thousands of years ago. The liberals have reintroduced tyrannical rule under the guise of a supreme court. The Senate Republicans have the opportunity but seem to lack the will.
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.