syntax252

Oh no, it is not at all confusing. It has only happened 27 times so far, and the first 10 amendments were passed even before the Constitution was ratified. Those first 10 amendments are what we call "The Bill of Rights" and provide the underlying support for the rights of the citizen. So, 17 additional amendments since 1789 is not exactly willy nilly. The amendment process requires a 2/3 vote in the House of Representatives, a 2/3 vote in the Senate and then must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. It is a difficult undertaking and we think rightfully so because the founding fathers were trying to avoid a "tyranny of the majority" that can occure when the rules of government are easily changed to suit the latest fad.

The Hell it doesn't. You suggest that English law should influence decisions made today by the SCOTUS. I respond to that by pointing out that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, just as the Constitution says that it is, and you say it has no relevance to what you posted? What have you been smoking?

Actually, I think that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land--don't you?

Perhaps you would prefer....up yours?

But you would agree that things are rather better than predicted to be at this point--would you not?

Well, if you say so coral, we will have to take your word on that.

It is indeed refreshing to know that you consider the Constitution to be more important than world opinion. Good girl!

Well excuuuuuuuuse me. Well listen to this, comming from someone who takes cheap shots at a person because of his age.

Listen to this....comming from a person who takes cheap shots at someone because of his age.

And your sense of humor will likely never be your strongest asset.

I am and it did. What do you think about the SCOTUS nodding to world opinion when interpreting the Constitution of the United States?

Actualy, it probably is as flat as a pancake--relatively speaking that is.

OK, but in the posted experiment, the time measurement was taken from the ground and not from inside the photons, so the anology is correct--correct?

Hey timetraveler, are you copying jshaber on Glocktalk, or is it the other way around? http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=349353&perpage=25&highlight=&pagenumber=6

If two cars were traveling towards one another at their top speed, which was 50 MPH, then they would be approaching each other at a rate of 100 MPH, even though neither of them was capable of that speed--correct?

I noted that. But what you have cited here is one logically inconsistent decision to support another logically inconsistent decision. Again--if it is C&U to execute a minor or a fruitcake then it is also C&U to execute an adult or one who is more blessed with brains. There are all manner of arguments to support abolition of the DP, but C&U is not one of them when it still exists for a portion of the population.

From the NY Times, it appears that the Missouri SC ruled it unconstitutional on the cruelity language in the Constitution. The SCOTUS upheld that opinion today. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/01/politics/01cnd-scot.html?hp&ex=1109739600&en=1042460ab48186e2&ei=5094&partner=homepage From the article: In August 2003, the Missouri Supreme Court overturned the death sentence, deciding by 4 to 3 that subjecting a juvenile killer to execution was unconstitutionally "cruel and unusual punishment" and resentencing Christopher Simmons to life in prison without parole. The state of Missouri appealed (Donald P. Roper is the superintendent of the prison where Mr. Simmons is lodged), asserting that the state high court lacked the authority to reject the United States Supreme Court's 1989 finding that capital punishment for 16- and 17-year-olds was constitutional. When the case was heard in October, lawyers for the defendant argued that new medical and psychological understanding of teenagers' immaturity validated the Missouri court's ruling. The United States Supreme Court upheld the state court today in overturning its own 1989 opinion.