Things That Just Piss Me Off

A lot of people do not understand the conflicts earley legislators had in this country. Those conflicts defined what this country was to be. The main conflict was Federalism vs States Rights.

Regardless of what people “think” the civil war was about, it was also about States Rights vs Federalism.

The early federalists believed that the federal government should make all the laws and decisions and that the states would just follow. The other side of the conflict believed each state had the right to make it’s own laws.

Remember, before the colonies joined together to form the country, each was a colony and they created their own laws. Before some states would join the US, they made sure their rights to make their own laws were protected.

There are certain laws that only the federal government can or should make. The rest of the laws should be decided by the voters of each state. Nevada wants to legalize gambling, but other states do not. That is a good example of how state laws differe and how state laws can supercede federal laws. There is no federal law legalizing gambling, but the state of Nevada legalized it anyway.

In California, they legalized medicinal marijuana. The federal government disagrees and has made marijuana illegal. Despite actions by John ASScroft when he was attorney general, the state still has the legal right to pass a law that legalizes medicinal marijuana. The voters voted for it. Done deal and their right to do so.

That brings us to the death penalty. Each state voted whether or not to reinstate the death penalty. The voters in each state voted. Many voted to have the death penalty, some did not. Texas voters decided to use the death penalty.

Now the supreme court, representing the federal government has stayed an execution to “examine” one method used in the execution of prisoners, lethal injection.

That is their right to do so. They can and should examine different methods used in executions.

That does not supercede the right of the state to continue to use those methods in implementing the death penalty. The fact that other state have halted their executions until they find out what the supreme court says about lethal injection does not supercede the right of Texas to continue.

They made their decision and Texas has made their decision. Perfectly ok if you believe that states have the right to make their own laws.

Texas Planning New Execution Despite Ruling
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL and LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: September 29, 2007

HOUSTON, Sept. 28 — A day after the United States Supreme Court halted an execution in Texas at the last minute, Texas officials made clear on Friday that they would nonetheless proceed with more executions in coming months, including one next week.

Though several other states are halting lethal injections until it is clear whether they are constitutional, Texas is taking a different course, risking a confrontation with the court.

Several legal experts said the Supreme Court reprieve would be seen by most states as a signal to halt all executions until the court determined, probably some time next year, whether the current chemical formulation used for lethal injections amounts to cruel and unusual punishment barred by the Eighth Amendment.

Texas, which has a history of confrontations with the Supreme Court over its prerogatives in criminal justice, does not appear interested in waiting. That forces lawyers for condemned prisoners to appeal each case as high as the Supreme Court.

The current challenge to the death penalty is on a much less fundamental level. Even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the two Kentucky inmates who brought the challenge to lethal injection, the result will not be to overturn any death sentences, but rather, at the most, to require a different method to carry them out.

It doesn’t even matter whether you are for or against the death penalty. It does not matter if you are for or against gambling. The voters in each state have the right to vote for what they believe.

It’s called democracy. The voters of Texas voted to have the death penalty. The death penalty is being used at the voter’s request. The fact that Texas is continuing to use a legal method of execution for prisoners means they are upholding what the voters told them to do.

If you live in a state that has the death penalty and you do not believe it’s right, then use the democratic process to get it voted down. Again, it’s called the democratic process.

But instead, we have people who whine about laws that get passed when they are of the minority opinion. They whine and they protest. Freedom of speech is a good thing. Trying to get a law you do not believe in voted down is part of the democratic process.

So I don’t blame critics for being outspoken. I don’t blame those who believe the death penalty is wrong for speaking out. As for the whining part. I can do without that.

Stumble it!