Arkansas Blog

To answer to Mr. Scalia's question, that would be found in the 8th Amemdment, where it clearly forbids "cruel and unusual punishment," which past courts have included quartering, disemboweling, dissecting, and being burned alive.

... or reading the Arkansas Times blog.

And yet, you're still here, Red. hmmmm....

You must like the pain....I guess all of you Republicans have a little "kink in your sheets," huh? haha.

DA, I suspect Justice Scalia won't need your assistance finding the 8th amendment. He is no doubt also well aware that the methods you describe have at their core intent the infliction of torture rather than the simple objective of quick death. Hence hanging and firing squad have long been recognized as providing sufficiently limited cruelty to meet the 8th amendment's standard. This whole argument is another attempt to amend the constitution through court order. (And this court won't do that.)

5 year olds are required to be immunized before attending school. Are these shots also cruel and inhumane treatment? Are flu shots cruel and inhumane?

Getting a shot, albeit a lethal one, doesn't seem to be in the same category as quartering, disemboweling, dissecting, or being burned alive.

Capital punishment isn't so much cruel and unusual as it is barbaric and debasing. In December, New Jersey officially disavowed the use of capital punishment. Arkansas has been in the minority for several years, and the number of states that employ capital punishment will continue to decline. Someday, Arkansas my be the only state to condone capital punishment, making us the lone state in league with the regimes we profess to despise.

No, taking up to half an hour to die, in aslow, painful manner, isn't cruel and unusual at all, is it? You must be right. Let's not forget, Governor Jeb Bush was one of the first people to raise this question, so I wouldn't be so quick to play the partisan card, gentlemen. And Theo, we all know that the "activist judges" sit on both sides of the aisle, and there are currently a HELL OF ALOT more conservative activist judges than liberal or moderate ones.

Take heart Pavel, AR won't be last. Ron White reminds us "Texas has the death penalty....and we USE IT".

Where does it say anywhere in the Constitution about "judicial review"?

>>>>Are these shots also cruel and inhumane treatment? Are flu shots cruel and inhumane?<<<<

Jesus.

What we do to humans when we execute them is not like getting a shot for school or putting a dog to sleep.
It is much slower and more painful.
We as a society should not be handing out retribution, leave it to the victim's family I say if they want their pound of flesh, just don't do it in my name.

Judicial review, Article III of said Constitution:
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution."

"5 year olds are required to be immunized before attending school. Are these shots also cruel and inhumane treatment? Are flu shots cruel and inhumane? " ~Severus

Severus, may I suggest before you go making comparisons like this, you do a little research? You could very simply click my blue name and listen to Nina Totenberg's report on the Supreme Court's hearing today. (It's going to be available after 7:00 p.m. today, according to the website.) It'll take less than 5-6 minutes of your life, and all you have to do is listen. It will show you that getting shots for the flu or immunizations is not the same as the execution cocktail. According to the defense's own experts, death can sometimes take as long as 30 minutes.

Also according to the report, this practice of execution has been outlawed in Kentucky (the location of the original case) in putting down animals. But, we still use it for humans. Hmmm . . . should make you think.

Please listen, do some research, and see what you come across. We all need to seriously consider what we're doing with capital punishment in this day and age. And, please be more thoughtful before making such flippant comments.

Article III of said Constitution:
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution."---devilsadvocate

Judicial Review is the courts' authority to overturn laws they judge unconstitutional. Any court in the USA can declare laws illegal if they are ruled by the courts to be in conflict with the US Constitution.

Again, devil,where in the Constitution is that spelled out?

The Supreme Court first established this power in Marbury vs Madision (1803), which struck down part of a law of Congress. Established. Created. The creation of the idea if the courts determined there was a conflict between a law and the Constitution the courts could step in and declare the law null and void.

Again, devil, where in the Constituion is that spelled out?

Of course, it wasn't challenged in 1803, and the concept has been accepted as part of our Constitution because of the "informal" amending process that often takes place. But the concept of judicial review of law vs Constitution is not spelled out in the Constitution and has never been formally amended for such procedure but it is accepted as an integral part of our constitutional system that it will exist as long as the Republic exists.

Ms Totenberg and others have pointed out that the same "cocktail" used for human executions has been forbidden for use on animals by veterinarians for years because it doesn't work as it was intended.

This is pretty simple. It's a shame the SC is wasting time on it. The Constitution clearly does not disallow executions. Executions were allowed at the time of it's adoption and "cruel and unusual" was not meant or used to outlaw them. If the framers had meant "cruel and unusual punishment, including capital punishment" they could have easily spelled it out.

So, for capital punishment "cruel and unusual" must have some meaning along the lines of "bringing on death in as humane a manner as is reasonable". So, as noted, live disemboweling is out. Hanging is in. Today we can do better than hanging, so we give a Versed and some Phenobarb like we do for a vasectomy. Then we apply the deadly part.

It's okay with me if we go back to hanging and shooting, but it's hard to believe those are less painful. Scalia hit it - where does it say "painless"?

Pavel has a valid position. And if it can make it through the constitutional amendment process it can be law. But it does not represent the legal effect of the current 8th Amendment.