My Constitutional right to domestic tranquility
Posted by Moonage on 08 Jul 2005 | Tagged as: Comments from the Host, Ethics, Fed Policy, Government, National Politics, The Legal Process
usconstitution.net takes the US Constitution and makes readily available to anyone. They also take it one step farther and analyze the various parts of the Constitution. Due to events occurring right now, which are not exclusive to right now, but definitely have moved to the forefront of media attention ( deservedly so ), I’d like to address one very specific topic of the Constitution. Namely, one particular line of the Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Now I know the intent of the Preamble was to unite the various small states into a common defense against larger, more powerful countries such as Britain and Spain. However, what it does not do is exclude common defense from within our own citizenry.
We need to look a lot more closely at this aspect of the US Constitution and lot less at this part:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
"Cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" is the part that has dumbed down the legal system to the point where capitol punishment has almost been become impossible to provide when that punishment would be equal to the crime committed. Now, I can understand how death would be "cruel and unusual" in the case of rape, but, when a death is the direct result of a person’s actions, death is equal to the crime committed, it’s not excessive, it’s not cruel, and, it’s not unusual.
Here’s the crux. If a person commits more than one murder, then, according to the Preamble, it’s is the obligation of the US government to "insure domestic Tranquility", "provide for the common defense", and "promote the general Welfare".
Amendment V states "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Amendment VI states "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
And, Amendment VII states "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
In other words, give them a trial, and if guilty, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and insure domestic tranquility without inflicting cruel and unusual punishment.
Rader, 60, of Park City, entered the guilty pleas as his trial was scheduled to begin Monday.
The trial is over, Rader pleaded guilty to 10 counts of murder. He needs killing. His death, in the face of the murders he’s committed and how he committed them, is far less than "cruel and unusual". What he doesn’t deserve is a decade of appeals. That is not provided for in the Constitution.
Joseph Duncan III raped a kid when he was a kid at gun point. Was accused of molesting a six year old once he got out. And, subsequently killed a BUNCH of people, and molested a small girl. And, top it off, pretty much announced to the world that he intended to do it:
"I was in prison for over 18 years, since the age of 17. As an adult all I knew was the oppression of incarceration. All those years I dreamed of getting out…And getting even. Instead, I got out and I got even, but did not get caught. So, I got even again, and again did not get caught. So, I figured, well, I got even twice (actually more, but that’s here nor there), even if I’m the only one who knows, so now what?"
In the case of Joseph Duncan III, the federal government failed to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and insure domestic tranquility.
The legal system has policy wonked itself to the point of being almost useless. Because of that, people like Joseph Duncan are allowed to walk free when they should never have been allowed free in the first place. Someone like Joseph Duncan, who is willing to kill anyone, is A THREAT TO THE GENERAL WELFARE. Is that so hard to understand? The judge that allowed Joseph Duncan to walk free VIOLATED MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY AND GENERAL WELFARE.
When these idiot judges start recognizing MY ( GENERAL WELFARE ) RIGHTS as opposed to THOSE WHO HAVE FORFEITED THEIR RIGHTS, then things will make a lot more sense in the legal system.
Someone probably needs to file a lawsuit over the Joseph Duncan and/or BTK Killer cases to have OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ENFORCED. As Duncan proves, putting them in prison DOES NOT ASSURE THE GENERAL WELFARE.
They just need killin in the worst way. The Constitution says so.
No sooner than I had typed this, I ran into the usual lame banter from "the other side". In this case it was penned by Peter Carlock. The three reasons given in the Joe Duncan case to not support death are:
- His death will not bring back Dylan.
- His death will not reverse the damage done to Shasta, either mentality, nor physically.
- His death will NOT, as much as anyone would like you to believe, discourage any others.
That is the same exact argument they always make. Here’s my counter to that:
- His death is the only thing that will prevent him from ever doing this again.
- By not assuring #1, the government is in violation of my Constitutional right to "domestic tranquility".
If the Peter Carlock’s of the world can figure out a better way to assure #1, have at it. As it stands now, the system they support has failed. And because of the system they support, my Constitutional rights have been violated.
No Comments »
