New Mexico Abolishes Death Penalty.

[Colpy]

It is ironic, Colpy, you start with your post ‘so many factual errors’. Actually in your post there are many factual errors. It is full of errors.

The formula for amending US constitution is as follows: I didn’t explain it in my last post because I assume (erroneously as it turns out) that most people already know it. Anyway, allow me correct you.

The formula is as follows:

First the amendment is passed in the House and the Senate by 2/3rd votes, it does not go to the states first. That is the next step. So first it is passed by House and the Senate by 2/3rd vote. I don’t think President has to sign it. As far as I am aware (and perhaps one of the Americans will correct me if I am wrong), it does not require President’s signature.

After that it goes to the states. And it must be ratified by 3/4th of the states, not 2/3rd of ht estates, within seven years. Here again, I don't think the Governor's signature is required. Once it is approved by 3/4th of the states, the amendment is approved. You had the order backwards, first it is passed by the Congress (not the President), then by the states (3/4th, not 2/3rd).

As to Canadian provinces, I forgot the most recent province, which became the province just recently. Anyway, I don’t think that changes the formula for amending the Canadians constitution. I assume it is still 7 provinces out of 10, totaling more than half the population, and for Charter it must be approved by every province.

The people that wrote the Charter did not include sexual orientation in the mix; therefore gay "rights" are not protected.

That was the original interpretation. But courts have read discrimination against gays into the Charter. So as of now, gays are included in the Charter and gay rights are protected by the Charter. The only way to take rights away from gays is to amend the Charter to specifically permit discrimination against gays. Good luck with that.

My, you do love to split hairs, don't you?
What I said about the US Constitution was from memory: so I looked it up, and you are correct: 3/4 of the states are necessary to ratify an amendment. The President has no role whatsoever in the process. But, there are four different methods, either Congress or the States can set the process in motion.

Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Now, as for the Courts and Gay Rights: It is most definitely NOT the role of the Court to write into the Constitution law that was not intended by those that wrote the document.

Constitutions are "dead", there is an amendment process to change them, their intent should NEVER be altered by a group of unelected political appointees.

AND the court merely said the old marriage law was unacceptable, it did NOT say that the definition of marriage had to include gay couples

 

[YukonJack]

ironsides in #40:

"Why would you even consider a convicted murderer in the same catagory as gays, Muslims, handicapped, women, aboriginals etc? "

I did no such thing and it takes a generous dose of ill will on your part to imply that I did.

gopher's post is a hate message aimed at Republicans. I simply meant to ask gopher if he would have the courage to replace the word 'Republican' with any of the groups I mentioned.

 

[EagleSmack]

"Americans love affair with the death penalty."

I am against the death penalty but give me a break. There is no love affair.

I find it humorous that the whacko left says abolish the death penalty but calls for the execution of Republicans. Humorous bit not surprised in the least.

 

[EagleSmack]

In my opinion, that is a major flaw in US system, minority rights are subject to a veto by the majority. In my opinion, minority rights is not something that should be decided by the mob, by 50% + 1 vote, but should be decided by the constitution, should be enshrined in the constitution. It is the job for the courts and the elected representatives, and not a fit subject for a referendum.

Then you have no real concept of the US system. Minorities have more rights than the majority. Affimative action for starters. Many times a majority vote has been passed only to be struck down by the courts or the elective body.

Here is Massachusetts the people who are for the Death Penalty have gatherd enough signatures to have a state referendum which would ask the people if they want the Death Penalty here in Mass. Because we are such a Liberal state the state legislature just lets the petition die which is against the state Constitution. The same with Gay Marriage... which I could care less about either way. The people wanted a referendum but the Liberal state body let the petition die in committee. Liberals always love to trample the Constitution while blaming others for doing the same.

 

[ironsides]

ironsides in #40:

"Why would you even consider a convicted murderer in the same catagory as gays, Muslims, handicapped, women, aboriginals etc? "

I did no such thing and it takes a generous dose of ill will on your part to imply that I did.

gopher's post is a hate message aimed at Republicans. I simply meant to ask gopher if he would have the courage to replace the word 'Republican' with any of the groups I mentioned.

Oh, Ok my mistake sorry.

 

[petros]

I bet Einstein could have killed 22 people in Texas but he would never ever had been executed even if he was mailing body parts to Republicans.

Why not?

 

[ironsides]

SirJosephPorter : EagleSmack is right, I was thinking about the Grand Scheme of the Constitution. Our State Senators do what ever they want until they get us mad enough to vote them out. If a Senator has most of his tern left to serve, he will vote what and however he wants. We have almost two years till the next election. In Mass. the people will just have to re-submit the petition again and again. Hopefully some Senator will vote with the majority someday. May never happen though, they still have T. Kennedy there.

 

[Spade]

"Americans love affair with the death penalty."

I am against the death penalty but give me a break. There is no love affair.

Yah, it's more like a shady liaison.

 

[petros]

Maybe they find it erotic?

 

[Spade]

Maybe they find it erotic?

Erotic or electric?!
YouTube - Execution on the electric chair explained

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Isn't if funny - in a sad, tragical way - that the loudest opponents of the death penalty for vicious, convicted criminals, are also the the loudest proponents of abortion?

Indeed, nothing diminishes a society more than killing its own innocent human lives by abortion.

Discussion seems to have moved on quite a bit since I posted my last post. I will try to address a few points here.

Yukon Jack, it is only your religious belief that abortion kills human beings; you have no scientific evidence for it. I have said it before, the day scientists tell me that fetus is the same as a human being from the moment of conception, that is the day I become prolife.

Abortion is a medical issue. Regarding any issue dealing with medicine, I prefer to listen to doctors and scientists, rather than listen to the Pope or the Fundamentalist preachers.

 

[petros]

YouTube - Right America Feeling Wronged 1 of 5

 

[SirJosephPorter]

gopher, your bold lettered post (#34) was truly impressive and left no doubt about your feelings. The image of a hanging tree was an added bonus.

Would you have the courage to spew the same hateful message about gays, Muslims, handicapped, women, aboriginals etc.

I don’t see what is hateful about it. Gopher expressed his views and he is entitled to it. I didn't see any hate.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

As I mentioned before, To add or remove a amendment from the U.S. Constitution you need 3/4 of the House of Representatives which comprise 435 members as well as 3/4 of the Senate which comprises 100 members. Very hard to tamper with the Constitution.

It is not 3/4th, ironsides. A 2/3rd majority is needed in the Senate and the House, not 3/4th.

A simple majority cannot change our Constitution.

Yes they can, at the state level, at least in some states.

People who are given the 'Death Penalty" are not considered a minority. I would never put them in the same category with the Gay's, Women or anybody else for that matter.

Perhaps not. But they are human beings and as human beings they are entitled to certain rights, such as the right to food, clothing and shelter (assuming they are incarcerated). They are also entitled to right to life, in my opinion.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

What I said about the US Constitution was from memory: so I looked it up, and you are correct:

Thanks, Colpy. What I wrote also was from the memory. However, I lived in USA in the 70s when they were considering the Equal Rights Amendment, so I have first hand knowledge of how the amendment process works.

Now, as for the Courts and Gay Rights: It is most definitely NOT the role of the Court to write into the Constitution law that was not intended by those that wrote the document.

You may think so (personally I disagree with you). However, that is precisely what the courts have done; they have declared that discrimination against gays violates the Charter. So like it or not now it is a part of the Charter.

Constitutions are "dead", there is an amendment process to change them, their intent should NEVER be altered by a group of unelected political appointees.

I suppose that is the philosophical difference between a liberal and a conservative. I happen to think that constitution is a living, dynamic document, and courts evidently agree with me.

AND the court merely said the old marriage law was unacceptable, it did NOT say that the definition of marriage had to include gay couples

Courts said that the law violates the Charter. Since the case was brought by gays who wanted to marry, it was clear what the courts were trying to say. At least most of Canadians interpreted court decision that way, that courts were saying that discrimination against gays violates the Charter.

So like it or not, it is part of the Charter now.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"Americans love affair with the death penalty."

I am against the death penalty but give me a break. There is no love affair.

I find it humorous that the whacko left says abolish the death penalty but calls for the execution of Republicans. Humorous bit not surprised in the least.

Of course there is no love affair, EagleSmack, I was just being facetious. However, you cannot deny that support for death penalty runs pretty high in USA, much higher compared to Canada.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Here is Massachusetts the people who are for the Death Penalty have gathered enough signatures to have a state referendum which would ask the people if they want the Death Penalty here in Mass. EagleSmack

We have almost two years till the next election. In Mass. the people will just have to re-submit the petition again and again. Hopefully some Senator will vote with the majority someday. May never happen though, they still have T. Kennedy there. Ironsides.

Now at any rate Massachusetts has a sensible method for amending the state constitution. As I understand it, the amendment must be passed by the legislature twice within one year and then it can be put to a referendum. So it is not left totally to the whim of the mob, to 50% + 1 majority. There are some safeguards.

If people gather enough signatures on a petition, I understand it still has to be considered by the legislature, and it has to garner at least 25% support in the legislature, before it can be put on the ballot. That is my understanding, is that correct?

If you guys are saying that the initiatives on death penalty and gay marriage are stalled, I assume the initiative cannot get even 25% support in the legislature. So the safeguards are working.

 

[YukonJack]

Reply to #51.

SirJosephPorter, like I said elsewhere, you are too blind to see facts.

I accompanied my daughter to her ultra-sound test to find the gender of her baby growing in her uterus.

Anyone who claims that it is not life - or even more disgustingly - that it is not HUMAN, should take an honest look in the mirror. If that BABY is not human - according to you - then neither are you.

This belief has nothing to do with religion although religion adds a measure of decency to it, unknown to those who deny a diety.

Seeing is believing and I saw LIFE, a HUMAN life, moving around, and the fact that she was not out of her mother's womb changes nothing.

Only an uncaring animal would terminate her - or anyone like her - for the comfort and convenience of the person who does not deserve to be called a
MOTHER - EVER!

 

[YukonJack]

"I on’t see what is hateful about it. Gopher expressed his views and he is entitled to it. I didn't see any hate."

Of course, you don't. Who cares about a few Republicans hanged by the neck for the sin and crime of being Republicans.

Safe to say that if that hate literature targeted Democrats/Liberals, you would be all indignant about it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Anyone who claims that it is not life - or even more disgustingly - that it is not HUMAN, should take an honest look in the mirror. If that BABY is not human - according to you - then neither are you.

That is your opinion, Yukon Jack, your opinion is not evidence. Your word (that you think or you ‘know’ that it is life) is not good enough.

I consider myself a man of science, and I listen to what scientists say. As long as scientists do not tell us that fetus is the same as a human being from the moment of conception, I am all for the freedom of the woman to decide what she should do with her body.

What you think may be relevant and important to you, but is not of much use when deciding public policy. When deciding public policy, what the doctors and scientist think is important, not what the Pope or Fundamentalist preachers think.