Sunday, August 25, 2013

JUDGE: KENTUCKY MUST CONSIDER SINGLE DRUG EXECUTIONS


JUDGE: KENTUCKY MUST CONSIDER SINGLE DRUG EXECUTIONS
Andrew Wolfson
USA Today
            Kentucky may be forced to change the way it executes inmates. Cases were brought up by 6 death-row inmates to Franklin Circuit Judhe, Phillip Shepher. The inmates have complained that executions using the three-drug combination may have cause unnecessary suffering. If true, this would violate the 8th Amendment.

            The Eighth Amendemnt is short and simple, quoting “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted.”
            However, it is vague in that it fails to define “cruel and unusual punishment.” The term was originally used to prevent certain forms of torture, such as burning or hanging. It is defines as "punishment or degradation too severe for the crime committed." Since the executed cannot discuss whether the execution was painful or not, it becomes difficult to keep methods up to the standards of the Eighth Amendment. It is possible that inmates are making these claims in order to halt their own
executions.

"My clients don't want to be executed, first and foremost, but if they are, they are entitled to a procedure that would be in conformance with the Eighth Amendment and reduce the risk of pain and suffering," said David Barron, an assistant public advocate who represents Ralph Baze, Thomas C. Bowling, Robert Foley, Brian Keith Moore and Parramore Sanborn.

            Not wanting to take the risk, Kentucky has halted all executions and is beginning to implement the one-drug law. The state been given 90 days to decide whether to adopt a new regulation allowing executions to be carried out with one drug by the inmate's lawyers. Kentucky law also does not protect the mentally ill and retarded from executions, which conflicts with federal and constitutional law as well. This not only violates the Eighth Amemdent, but the Tenth Amendment too. The Tenth amendment states that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
            In short, the Tenth Amendment says that the States have no power over federal laws. Although this is the subject of much debate, most states protect the mentally handicapped from execution. Many believe that the federal government should have the final say on the execution law—if there should even be one. Capital punishment is losing popularity in the United States, as 40% of the world’s countries have abolished the punishment. It is a matter of much controversy in various countries and states, including the United Sates. However, 63% of Americans are currently in support of capital punishment. Since we cannot abolish the death penalty without a majority of popular support, the punishment may remain in tact for years.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-04-26/death-penalty-drugs/54549438/1

GUN CONTROL AND THE CONSTITUTION



GUN CONTROL AND THE CONSTITUTION
David B. Rivkin and Andrew M. Grossman
February 10, 2013
Wall Street Journal

        The Second Amendment states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  But gun control in the United States has become a highly debated subject given the recent mass shootings as well as the Trayvon Martin case. The fatal shooting of Martin by George Zimmerman took place on February 26th, 2012, in Sanford, Florida. Martin was a high school student who was temporarily staying in a gated community. Zimmerman was taken into custody for fatally shooting Martin. However, Zimmerman was initially released due to a lack of evidence and a right to defend himself with a lethal force.

This issue this article addresses is whether the possibility of restricting gun ownership and use is even up for debate.  The authors feel that some politicians are simply uncomfortable with the whole idea of firearms and are trying to place limitations on ownership that are unconstitutional.

However, the right to bear arms is a deeply set part of our constitution. It was granted to United States citizens for more than just self-defense, but resistance to oppression and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. Its intent was to ensure that citizens of the United States could fight off a force if they wanted too.

Some feel that the government can and should increase gun regulation, for example banning “assault weapons,” or magazine size, in an effort to limit gun ownership to what is necessary for self-defense.  The opposing argument, however, states that “assault weapons,” while they look more powerful and potential harmful than others, are actually not very different from other guns in an firing mechanism or ammunition size.   The necessary size of the guns magazine is also not clear.  A citizen trying to defend against multiple intruders would need more ammunition, for example, than someone defending against a single intruder.

Article 5 of the Constitution allow it to be changed. New amendments that restrict gun use can always be added with the approval by a two-thrids majority vote in each house of Congress and three-fouths by the states. If more idea gun-control gains mass popularity, the Second Amendment could be outdated. Currently about 54% of United States citizens are in favor of making gun control more strict.

The conclusion states that while some gun regulation is necessary, for now, the Constitution must always uphold the right to keep and bear arms.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323951904578290460073953432.html

TEXAS VOTER ID LAW GOES TO COURT


TEXAS VOTER ID LAW GOES TO COURT
Bill Mears



            Trying to pass a new voting law, Texas State officials went to federal court on Monday. It is required by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that the federal government oversee any state’s “attempt to change any voting qualification.” This includes Texas’ proposed law, SB 14. In effect, SB 14 would require government issued identification from voters.

            Texas wants SB 14 in effect to prevent voter fraud. Director of Texas’s election division, Keith Ingram, indentified 239 dead people casting a ballot in the past year. However, organizations such as the NAACP and the Justice Department argue that the new law would deny hundreds of thousands of people the right to vote. Many of the denied would be minorities and disabled individuals.

            Although the State of Texas provides free ID cards for those seeking them to vote, the cards would need to be obtained in person at an ID office. There are only 81 Texas counties that have these offices, preventing persons who are financially or physically unable to travel from casting a ballot.

            According to the Constitution, only citizens of the United States may vote. It is against the constitution to deny any US citizen the right to vote based on religion or race. The 15th Amendment states:
 “1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

            The voting rights act reinforces the 15th Amendment, saying at "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color."

Even though SB 4 would not directly discriminate against people or color, it does put up barriers against people who don’t already have identification. Section II of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits the refusal of an qualified voted to vote. the act of turning an eligible voter down because he/she does not have the proper, state issued ID is particularly controversial.

            Perhaps the Texas government can make it easier for citizens to attain ID. They could open up more offices or send identification through the mail. However, it may be more financially benficial to implement stricter monitoring of voting fraud.


http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/09/us/texas-voter-id-law