I lumped all the dirties together as hippies in the statement. Too lazy to break out all the groups and sub groups.
Unless of course they are asking for ID while Voting, then it's necessary. but They don't want a background check (provide ID) because it violates the 2nd. both sides have the same issue. Just depends on the hotbutton(s).
For heinous crimes I believe we should look at the “cruel and unusual” punishment section of the constitution differently. We should allow the actions of the perpetrator to define cruel and unusual, the felon that dismembers someone should suffer the same death because after all he did not find it cruel or unusual.
that's one school of thought that has considerable traction (several people here clearly support it). it is simply not the current interpretation, however, and i find it unlikely given the history of 8th amendment that we'd go that direction again.
The point was that both sides have wants and in cases are willfully ignorant of the constitution when convenient to their cause.
Indirectly, wouldn't that also imply that we (as a collective society) are stooping to the level of an individual/group that has performed a heinous act? While emotions may dictate drawing and quartering, why should we lower our standards? Separately, got your voice mail. I'll give you a call tonight.
it's pretty clear from 8th amendment interpretation and state laws that as a society, we have not for some considerable period of time now approved of a purely "eye for an eye" type of punishment scheme. i don't see that changing.
Huge +1. Funny how people go from Constitution this and Constitution that, then in the next breath they're all for stripping away a suspect's 4th through 8th amendment rights. Bill of Rights isn't ala cart. Doesn't really stop our own government from trampling over it however.