Get rid of the Death Penalty.

Sounds like you're down & don't want to get up. Also, that you spend too much time navel-gazing & babbling on in these forums.
P.S. Exercise your constitutional right of travel & join the 20% of this country which moves each year. I suggest a state that either lacks or doesn't enforce the death penalty. Maybe you'll feel better or at least become more fully human.

 

I'm okay/You're okay.

Yet I know Saenz v Roe, and you, given that which is below don't. SO who's been navel-gazing and who is babbling about what they clearly do not know, and who has been actually trying to know more, regardless of whether it makes for happy or not?

See the above, learn your Constitution (and, just maybe, be able to compare and contrast it with the Articles of Confedertion, which DID offer an explicit right to travel, whichthe Constitution does not...Saenz, by the way, affirmed this AND a presumed right to travel as established NOT by the Constitution, but by US law and precedent)...and, btw: running from one's problems, just to be happy, isn't very 'merican, is it? Hmmm...maybe, nowadays, for most, that's EXACTLY how "being AMerican" is both conceived and experienced: the pursuit of happiness, regardless of that which faces community and nation...GET YOURS, BABY!



Keep posting; to the extent that you're representative at all in any statistically significant sense, you explain...alot.

 

Sorry Mike, but this is neither, save the quip "flame away". The left has been making the converse to this argument for years, myself included.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/03/execution.dna.ap/index.html

Of course this type of testing wasn't available at the time of the case so in many ways this is in fact 20/20 hindsight. Still this should be a motivation to use DNA as a mandatory means for any DP case.

 

I guess you missed my desire for accountability in the last election. I like accountability in politics, but it isn't common. Your hero Clinton proved that when he escaped removal from office for flagrant perjury.

 

Danny, I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber.

Didn't want to do it. Felt I owed it to them.

 

I'm against the death penalty. As a Catholic, I've always worked from the assumption that someone else is responsible for decisions about life and death, and that our system of judgment should not usurp that function.

With no due respect to Smiley, I resent the implication that being against the death penalty means you are soft on crime or the criminal. It's classic "anti-liberal" swill that has no foundation in fact. I am up for the harshest possible punishment allowed by the constitution for heinous crimes as long as they stop short of execution.

 

It's not the argument, it is the threadjacking.

PS...it's a stupid argument, coming from the left OR the right.

 

1. Your ignorance amuses me.
2. Bush admitted he broke the FISA law. Do you want him impeached, yes or no? Straight answer, please.

 

I guess I've had enough of this thread then.

 

But luckily I stayed just long enough to see more thread jacking.

 

This is what I was saying in my "awakening" thread. 90% of what the right says about the left has no foundation in fact.

 

I don't think it is a stupid argument, so much as it is a disingenuous one from most of us.

I actually have great respect for those who are "pro-life" across the board, meaning anti-death penalty, anti-abortion, anti-war, pro social programs that support and enhance life beyond the womb for those who need help.

There are very few people who can honestly say they fall in this category, and people can have genuine differences of opinion on some of those sub-categories, but I don't think it is a "stupid" position.

 

It is, because it equates a person who is on death row because he has been convicted of a heinous crime with a bundle of cells that can't survive outside the womb.

 

Facts.

 

It's a statistical fact that 87% of liberals have silly opinions 92% of the time.

It was a study by the Carnegie-Atex foundation.

 

After they dump Cheney and make Newt Gingrich Vice-President, yes, remove the bum.

However, I don't expect the same from you, you would tolerate anything if Clinton did it. Or any Democrat.

 

Thurgood Marshall wrote: "[F]reedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution." and "it is clear that the freedom to travel includes the "freedom to enter and abide in any State in the Union" and "a long line of cases recogniz(e) the constitutional right to travel, and repeatedly reaffirmed in the face of attempts to disregard it". http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=405&invol=330

Enjoy the ride! Try to find an editor!
P.S. Are you claiming to be significant in any sense?

 

Never said something different, but the legislative process abolishing the death penalty would need convincing of voters, which he is trying to do by communicating with them. If he's successfull, someone who wants to ban the death penalty comes into power and it gets banned.

 

We could just go with the New Jersey compromise, where we have the death penalty but don't actually kill anyone.

 

Significant enough to be willing to pay you $1,000 via PayPal if you can find anything in the Constitution that declares a right to travel. I gave you the case that deals with this, and made it clear to you that thee's no doubt that there is a right to travel, but that it does not spring form the language of the Constitution, which you claimed. In fact, it is a presumed right that springs from US law and precedent.

But go ahead, if this is what it seems to be about - getting the last word. Like I said, the more you post, the more I understand about why we are the way we are.

I'll just kick back and watch your...performance, over the next few days, and observe how that correlates with the abject - and fervently committed - ignorance found in the larger, national discourse. So far, it's been nearly 1:1...

 

No I wouldn't.