A little more than a week ago, a white supremacist named Payton Gendron shot and killed ten of his fellow creatures who had done him no harm, and whose only sin was being black.
It doesn't have the death penalty (by judicial fiat, not any act of the electorate). The feds do. Federal jurisdiction exists here for much the same reasons it did in the Charleston church massacre. Whether that is good or bad as a general matter is a fairly debated question, but in providing for a legal DP where, as here, it's richly deserved, I have no problem in taking advantage of present law.
Don’t do this to me, Bill! This may be the first DP case where there is a crack of daylight between us. It’s not whether he deserves it or not. I would never shed a tear for this person.
My apprehension comes from the incredible expansion of the commerce clause to mean whatever the hell government officials want it to. Are we really to believe that the commerce clause was meant to cover shopping for an avocado from California? I would rather see the nation wake up and change the law to make what he did death penalty eligible. The “what is right and good” part of me is fighting with the fealty to the constitution part.
You know what a callous fellow I am, so I'm going to keep doing it to you until a certain young man shows up in Hawaii. His father can come to. Now as to law: As long as Wickard and Raich are on the books, I'll follow them. If we have to live with the lousy outcroppings of constitutionally profligate decisions, then we live with the good outcroppings too.
You better watch it, I may just take you up on that offer some day. I have to take a look at the price of airline tickets and we will be knocking on your door. :-)
I cannot argue much with your point. I have long been a proponent of the MAD principle, so I guess it fits here.
I would think new york state has a law against murder
It doesn't have the death penalty (by judicial fiat, not any act of the electorate). The feds do. Federal jurisdiction exists here for much the same reasons it did in the Charleston church massacre. Whether that is good or bad as a general matter is a fairly debated question, but in providing for a legal DP where, as here, it's richly deserved, I have no problem in taking advantage of present law.
Don’t do this to me, Bill! This may be the first DP case where there is a crack of daylight between us. It’s not whether he deserves it or not. I would never shed a tear for this person.
My apprehension comes from the incredible expansion of the commerce clause to mean whatever the hell government officials want it to. Are we really to believe that the commerce clause was meant to cover shopping for an avocado from California? I would rather see the nation wake up and change the law to make what he did death penalty eligible. The “what is right and good” part of me is fighting with the fealty to the constitution part.
You know what a callous fellow I am, so I'm going to keep doing it to you until a certain young man shows up in Hawaii. His father can come to. Now as to law: As long as Wickard and Raich are on the books, I'll follow them. If we have to live with the lousy outcroppings of constitutionally profligate decisions, then we live with the good outcroppings too.
You better watch it, I may just take you up on that offer some day. I have to take a look at the price of airline tickets and we will be knocking on your door. :-)
I cannot argue much with your point. I have long been a proponent of the MAD principle, so I guess it fits here.
BTW, love the substack!