Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items tagged Constitution

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Bryan Pregon

Petition for Texas to secede from US reaches threshold for White House response - U.S. ... - 5 views

  •  
    We should all know this is not going to happen. This is more of a state tantrum about wanting their state rights back. Personally I agree completely with the states that are doing this because the federal government is way past the boundary. The federal government is in place to protect us from others not are self's.
  • ...15 more comments...
  •  
    it says clearly that andrew johnson made it so no state for any reason could secede from the union,their will be another election in 4 years o if everybody would just relax and chill everything will be fine
  •  
    I think this is just a way of Texans and those other states to show their frustration with the government
  •  
    There are now three other states; Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana, that have reached the required 25,000 signatures on We the People to prompt a response from the White House. I am just waiting to see how the White House will respond to any of the four petitions.
  •  
    they must think that they can do it better then the normal government. so if they think they can and if the fail they fail if not then good for them.
  •  
    i think the white house will respond with a no
  •  
    i think there only trying to do this because there mad that Obama won , and that he will lead the state in to bigger dept.
  •  
    If the proclamation says the states can't separate they would need to rewrite it and make a new set of laws, also what would happen if they fail at a new government? would they just want the US of america to take them back?
  •  
    I think that this will never happen. Although they might not believe that being apart of the U.S. benefits them, It truly does.
  •  
    it would never happen but it will be interesting to see if any changes happen in response to this
  •  
    I don't think this is going to happen but it is still pretty scary that people are that mad at the government. I think that people always blame the government when they are not happy. If we didn't have the government we would be in more trouble than we are in now. Yes our economy is getting hard and we need more jobs. But some people are lazy and should not make the government pay for everything.
  •  
    I believe that Texas would do well in its own government, but it would be better to keep the 50 states.
  •  
    Texas is probably just upset with the turn out of the election therefore just trying to create their own government to get what they think deserve.
  •  
    I'm not sure if the point of the article is, "Why Texas wants to Secede." I'm moreover focused as to, if it will happen, and if it is a right of the state to leave the Union. Personally, I would say it is the right of a state to decide if they want to secede. Let us look at the tenth amendment. 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. The state has over 80k people who signed a petition asking for a secession. If this is the majority, our 10Th amendment would likely give the state the right to secede, as long as 50.1% of the population wished to secede. (Doubt that they actually have a majority that wishes to secede.) In English: The 10Th amendment grants the states the right to secede if the majority of its population sees fit. This is caused by the lack of detail in the constitution. The lacking detail being whether or not the states have the right to secede. (Founding father: Let's put state secession here next to gay marriage and abortion!) Anyways, as long as the majority of Texans wish to secede, I doubt there is any way that the United States could actually tell them they could not, at least not without some sort of conflict.
  •  
    I have to be . . . not serious here. Just a word of advice to the states who want to secede, based on what happened in the Civil War: If you secede, you won't succeed.
  •  
    Payton I think the Supreme Court has already decided in Texas v White that States can't unilaterally secede from the government. They have the right to secede through revolution or by asking the other States and getting their permission. At least that's how I read the ruling. Unless there is a newer ruling on secession then Texas v. White. "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States. Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."
  •  
    Jeremy, what am I trying to state, is that states do have a right to secede, because we are not in a perpetual agreement to join the union. It was perpetual during the Articles of Confederation, the supreme court ruled that they have do not know if the constitution. "It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words." English: The Articles of Confederation declared it to be a perpetual union. The Articles of Confederation no longer exist. The supreme court literally state that they are going by ground of the Articles of Confederation, a.k.a. not a valid ground to take a stance upon. Now, if we look in history. plessy v. ferguson was a supreme court case that was overturned. This case can be overturned. Also, Jeremy, your understanding is correct on most of it. But from what the case as a whole states, under the Articles of Confederation, what you states is Valid. The Court ruled this with the usage of the Articles of Confederation. (Personally, do not think you should be able to do that, and that the courts ruling is a mistake.) Finally, I am simply stating the states have a right to secede if they want to, this is because the constitution, and not the articles of confederation, is vague about the idea of secession, applying the 10th amendment, the states should have a right to secede if they have a majority of people, unless we plan to be a hypocritical society that has already forced others to use the policy in which most people want to deny.
  •  
    I think this in an interesting topic. The idea of states attempting to secede from the union is mind blowing. We know our government is faulty and far from flawless... but in comparison to others, we find it to be the strongest. We defend such a government, yet there are states that want to withdraw from it! I would actually like to look into this topic a little more, so I can understand all factors in the state's decisions!
Bryan Pregon

Justices will soon decide whether to take up same-sex marriage appeals - CNN.com - 7 views

  •  
    I'm not sure if we as a society, are prepared for such a big idea to be handled. The Justices are going to, if they take up the case, make some major leaps and bounds for the community, or pretty much end same sex marriage. If the court does take up the case, I am going to want to follow it extremely closely.
  • ...13 more comments...
  •  
    I think that it is time for the Supreme Court to rule on this issue. This is an issue that is important to a minority group that has never really been ruled on by the Supreme Court. I personally want to see how the Court applies the Loving v. Virginia case to one or all of the cases they may hear. I just don't expect anything until after the election in November because it has become an important issue this election cycle. Payton I don't think that the Supreme Court could end same-sex marriage. Marriage licenses are left up to each individual state and I can't imagine any possible outcome that would result in the Supreme Court taking away a State's right to issue a marriage license to whoever they want to grant a license to. I can see them saying there is no right to marry at the federal level or that the Federal Government doesn't have to recognize same-sex marriages but I don't see them telling states that they can't issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple if the state wants to.
  •  
    Jeremy, what I am saying is that same sex marriage, if ruled against, will have almost no chance of reversing the choice for a very long time. Based upon our constitutional values though, I doubt that they will rule in favor of those that oppose same sex marriage though.
  •  
    I'm still like . . . trying to figure out why exactly some people hate the idea of gay marriage so much and want to make sure that it's not legal. I mean, even if it's for religious reasons, like their religion doesn't support gays and lesbians, it's not like they would be getting married in their church or that they even want to. It doesn't affect those against gay marriage at all. It really only affects gays and lesbians and it makes them happy.
  •  
    I think whatever the outcome and effects of the ruling will be a new direction in our lives as Americans. I'm interested in how this will effect us in the future.
  •  
    http://gaymarriage.procon.org/ I know I got a little confused about why some people think same sex marriage marriage is bad and I found this to be very helpful in understanding it.
  •  
    I, myself, do not agree with gay marriage, or being gay at all. But that is my personal beliefs. I don't want people to try to tell me that I'm wrong, because I'm not saying I am right. I know this is a big issue in the U.S and it does need to be addressed, but I do think it is more of a state issue. As for gay marriage, it will probably be passed to be legal, and that's fine because it really doesn't affect me, I am straight. But from a conservative viewpoint, here is why some don't agree with gay marriage, not just because of religion. It is because it defeats the whole sacredness marriage was and still is meant to be. To me it is for man and wife. Not man and man or woman and woman. I am not intending to offend anyone at all, if someone wants to be gay, then be gay. I will not discriminate, I just will not support it, because I don't agree with it.
  •  
    You do realize that times have changed, right? And there are a lot of things that have changed as times have gone on, like gender roles, for example. It used to be that women were raised to do all the housework and mothering and such because "things were meant to be that way". Meanwhile, men were raised to fight and work on the farms because "things were meant to be that way". Now women, while payed less, are allowed to have jobs and have gotten the right to vote, but even so still have to fight to gain and keep other rights. Honestly, unless you're white, straight, and male, you haven't really gotten rights until sometime in the late 19th /20th century, and for some in the 21st century. Also, how would a homosexual relationship ruin the sacredness of marriage? When you really consider it, marriage isn't all that sacred, especially these days because there's money and materialism involved, and then of course sex too. Of course, sex is okay so long as you're married, but if you're not married and you've had sex, it's considered immoral, according to society. And even though people these days marry for love, those things are still involved in it. And if marriage is sacred, then why are divorces allowed? Aren't sacred things supposed to be protected no matter what? Divorce obviously doesn't protect marriage. It just ends marriages. If marriage was considered sacred then divorces wouldn't be allowed, and divorce is necessary at times.
  •  
    I think that if a man and a woman hate each other but still have more rights to get married than two homosexuals who actually love each other, then we should definitely legalize it!
  •  
    Whoa, I never said anything about the roles of men and women, sex or divorce. I was stating my opinion on gay marriage, and I will continue to do so in this comment. Again, not intended to offend anyone, just my take on what I think about gay marriage and being gay in general. Kirstina, you just proved my point for me that being gay isn't right by saying it depends on how people are raised that changes how they will be like when their older. So are the way people are raised now, affecting if they are gay or straight? If someone were told tell me that people are born gay, I would say they are wrong. (I'm bringing this up because that is probably what you and many viewers believe) Here's why, when you're a little kid, you don't think about which gender you like. You think about having friends with whoever and don't even know about how to take friendship further than that, as a child. There is no gene in your body that makes you gay.Plus, no one that says they're gay, knows until they are teens or older. That is because they observe how others are, think about how they are treated by the opposite gender and make their decision. And why are there all of the sudden so many gay people? Why weren't there any back then? Not because it wasn't allowed, because it wasn't not allowed, it was just unheard of. It's (to me) because it isn't natural. It is a life CHOICE that people have made for their OWN reasons. Some for attention, some to fit in, some because they can't find someone of the opposite sex that is interested in them and some for reasons I don't know. People are put on this Earth to make more people, just like animals are here to live, provide for people and make more animals. Two men or two women physically cannot make more people. Man and man and woman and woman are not meant to be together. What is and/or was meant to be can't change. Because whatever is meant to be is just meant to be and you can't change that, no matter what time in history it is. Gay marriage d
  •  
    Gay marriage does ruin the sacredness of marriage because a married couples are supposed to stay together, reproduce, carry on the human race, and be a happy family. I know, sounds a little far fetched in this modern day, but if America could go back to that, this country would be so much better off. I'm not saying divorces don't happen, or are wrong because my parents are divorces and my mom is remarried and that doesn't make them bad people. But I am saying that they made a mistake somewhere and did, in turn affect the sacredness of marriage. Divorces should not be illegal, but people should think twice before getting married. Also, I'm not trying to squash the dreams of gay couples, or tell anyone that I'm right and their wrong, that is not my intention.
  •  
    Alex I would just like to point out a few things you may have over looked or may not have known. The first thing is that there aren't "all of the sudden so many gay people?" There have been homosexual and bisexual people throughout history. One example is the first gay couple to be joined by Civil Union in the world, in Denmark, in 1989 and had been in a relationship 40 years prior to their Union. The reason we don't hear much about homosexuality in history is because it used to be a crime that if found guilty of being homosexual you could be put to death or thrown in jail for it (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has more information on this particular subject). It is reasonable, then, to believe that homosexuals would keep their homosexuality to themselves as to protect themselves from violence. Another thing you seem to overlook is that there are heterosexual couples who "physically cannot make more people," for one reason or another without using alternative methods such as surrogates and/or in vitro fertilization. that still enjoy the benefits and legal aspects (such as inheritance and the right to hospital visits and end of life decisions for their spouse) of marriage. These same options are also available for Same-Sex couples and they have the option to have children that are the biologic child of one of the parents just like families where one of the parents is infertile. Homosexual behaviors have also been observed in natural populations in a large number of other animals have shown homosexual behaviors while observed in their natural habitats and also in unnatural locations such as zoos. So to say that homosexuality is unnatural ignores that these observations have been made in the "natural" world. The finial thing that you brought up was about when people form, or in your words "choose", their sexuality. The American Psychological Association says that a persons sexual orientation can start to form in middle childhood and early adolescence a
  •  
    Alex . . . you totally missed my point with me saying how people used to be raised. This is what I said: "And there are a lot of things that have changed as times have gone on, like gender roles, for example. It used to be that women were raised to do all the housework and mothering and such because "things were meant to be that way". Meanwhile, men were raised to fight and work on the farms because "things were meant to be that way". Now women, while payed less, are allowed to have jobs and have gotten the right to vote, but even so still have to fight to gain and keep other rights." I was merely giving that as an example of how times have changed and how things have changed. If women and nonwhite races can get rights over time, then why can't homosexual people? That doesn't seem fair. Marriage has now become a legal thing, and even if you don't want to, you have to accept it as it is - a legal thing that's nowhere near sacred. So what's so bad about gays having the the same legal rights to get married and all the legal things that come with it? Also, at dinner tonight, my dad told me that marriage used to be a property thing. Women/wives used to be considered property and not human beings. African Americans became slaves of the American white people, and therefore were also property. Now slavery is illegal, and marriage happens between two people who love each other and are willing/want to be legally bound. Also, therefore marriage has never been sacred. I also agree wholeheartedly with what Jeremy said.
  •  
    Guys, Alex gave her opinion, she even said in her that is her personal belief, and that she didn't want anyone trying to tell her that she was wrong. She stated her opinion, you don't have to kill her through a website, It is her opinion, lay off.....
  •  
    I am glad to see opinions on both side of this issue in the comments (lots of good information in many posts and "food for thought"). Thanks for being respectful in your comments! To continue the discussion, Americans are almost equally divided on gay marriage. Here is the most recent poll data to see how we have changed our opinion since 1996... http://goo.gl/yUIP3
  •  
    In all reality, gay marriage being a possibility to be legalized, is very interesting. Our constitutional founders, from what many anti-gay's claim, say that the founders were all religious, and did not support gay marriage. The problem with that is the constitutional wording, freedom of religion. Another issue is separation of church and state, this the facts Mr. Pregon gave are interesting, but can we say the religion is a reason as to why gay marriage should/should not be legal? Something funny, although probably irrelevant, is the idea of a church for the gay community to worship as they please, and is accepting of gay marriage. Form some sort of religion out of this, and by that, the gay community can simply do as they please, and get married as they want just by the basis of our constitution. I don't know why, but that thought just came to mind.
Bryan Pregon

Schiff introduces constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United | TheHill - 0 views

  •  
    "Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Wednesday introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling, which eliminated restrictions on corporate campaign spending."
Bryan Pregon

Alabama death row inmate Vernon Madison gets reprieve - CNN - 5 views

  •  
    "Given Alabama's rejection of judicial override, the death sentence in this case constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and violates Mr. Madison's rights to a jury, fair and reliable sentencing and to due process and equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Alabama law," they wrote in their petition."
  •  
    I understand that Madison has become mentally ill and doesn't have memory of the crime he committed, but he still committed the crime and was sentenced to the death penalty at first. However, due to an Alabama law no longer allowing the death penalty I think life without parole would be a good alternative for him.
  •  
    "Mr. Madison suffers from vascular dementia as a result of multiple serious strokes in the last several years, and no longer has a memory of the commission of the crime for which he is to be executed," How does this make the crimes he has committed go away?
Bryan Pregon

A memorial for Crazy Horse 64 years in the making ... so far - CNN.com - 2 views

  •  
    It pays tribute to the Native American war hero with a sculpture that, at many times the size of nearby Mount Rushmore, will one day constitute the world's largest mountain carving. That is, if it ever gets completed.
Jeremy Vogel

Move to Amend's Proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution - 2 views

  •  
    What do you all think about this proposed amendment?
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    I agree with this amendment making sure that corporations are not treated as people within law.
  •  
    This is a really interesting movement. While I think most people (people being the keyword there) would be more than happy to see this passed. Unfortunately I feel the corporations that hold a lot of influence in our government won't allow this to get the proper attention where it counts.
  •  
    Although if it were to be passed then it would show that the people can still indeed overpower the large corporations and their political pull.
Madison Hass

Yes, President Obama, the Constitution applies to you, too - 1 views

  •  
    President Obama takes the oath of office at the official swearing-in ceremony in the Blue Room of the White House Sunday, Jan. 20, 2013. Administering the oath is Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts (not shown). Holding the Bible is first lady Michele Obama and looking on are Obama children Malia and Sasha (not shown).
Jeremy Vogel

No, Justice Scalia, Overruling Roe, Criminalizing Sex and Killing Inmates Are Not 'Abso... - 2 views

  •  
    Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia routinely pretends that his approach to the law is merely to follow the clear language of the Constitution, and anyone who does not reach the same conclusions he does must be doing it wrong.
  •  
    Just.... Wow.... How can someone find the constitution so easy? Either, he has spoken to the dead and found out what the founding fathers believe on gay marriage, or he is inserting his own beliefs into this.
Mallory Huggins

Oops, I left my sexual orientation at home - 5 views

  •  
    I think that is crazy, why people think that some people would choose to be tortured everyday is beyond me. I mean come on. I think this issue should just resolve like now, yes I understand that in the bible it says that homosexuality is a sin. But God made you who you are. People have to understand that, obviously there is a plan, it just hasn't showed itself to everyone yet. Being Homosexual is a life, if a Heterosexual stepped into a Homosexual's life for one day they would understand that they go through so much crap constantly. I think if it was just passed as a law people would forget about it. And everything in the world would be a lot less hectic. P.S.... I love the translation at the bottom!! That is hilarious!! :D
  •  
    my whole view on this is that it is ridiculous. gay people should get their rights already.
  •  
    In all reality..... If Religion is your reason to say, "Being gay is not okay," then you really need to know your history. First, Christmas, if I recall the documentary that I watched not to long ago correctly, was a time for grown men to beat there wives, and go out and have "gay sex" with each other? So, if you denounce gay marriage because of Catholicism, or Christianity, you just denounced Christmas. Second, for those of you who are Hindustan, you have a celebrated holiday that is for 2 guys, and 1 girl, to "get it on." It's called Karma Sutra. Yeah, religion should not be allowed to interfere in America's choice to permit/deny gay marriage, and not just for those 2 reasons. (Those reasons being that the religions allow it themselves, yet say it is not okay.) Let's just read out constitution. We've all heard, "Freedom of Religion," before, right? Well, right there, religion should not be allowed to found a reason as to deny gay relationships. To add, let us look at the Declaration of Independence, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Pursuit of happiness includes marriage correct? If so, define marriage Religion definition: The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. Actual definition: Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship. Just by out constitutional freedoms, and foundations, most of it points in the direction of gay marriage should be legal, which Jenny, is why I agree with you. As for being gay being something you can fix, don't think so. I don't see people changing there skin color. (Except Micheal Jackson, but we all still know that he was not as light-toned as that.) Do you see people choosing there eye color? Either that is one expensive (or failed) surgery, or it does not happen. I don't think you are capable of changing the way someone is born, (unless it changes your physical appearance, which does not change you
Payton Whiteaker

The Supreme Court and Elections - 4 views

I found the article interesting, it brings in to question the ideas if our Constitution is a "living" document that evolves over time or not, explains why the presidents should speak more about the...

Government Politics News CNN Gay Marriage Voting Rights Act of 1965 Constitution Defense

started by Payton Whiteaker on 28 Sep 12 no follow-up yet
Bryan Pregon

Sen. Feinstein Says CIA Searched Senate Intel Panel's Computers, May Have Violated 4th ... - 2 views

shared by Bryan Pregon on 12 Mar 14 - No Cached
john cannon liked it
  •  
    "The head of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Tuesday that the CIA searched the panel's computers and that the search may have violated the Constitution."
  •  
    Finally the government knows what it is like when people can get information from you or watch your every move 24/7 without much effort all their personal information can gathered in seconds.
desertratt

Our Constitution, a worthless piece of paper? - 0 views

  •  
    President George W. Bush was fond of saying that "9/11 changed everything." He used that one-liner often as a purported moral basis to justify the radical restructuring of federal law and the federal assault on personal liberties over which he presided.
Bryan Pregon

Will Chief Justice John Roberts anger conservatives? - CNNPolitics.com - 1 views

  •  
    "The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Tuesday in a case that could decide whether gay and lesbian couples nationwide have the constitutional right to marry. The question at the core of Obergefell v. Hodges is one of the most consequential debates of the early 21st century, and one that is already helping to shape the 2016 presidential race."
Bryan Pregon

Louisiana student says prayer was forced at school, so she sued - CNN - 4 views

  •  
    "The change came because Kaylee Cole and her mother Christy had finally had enough, and decided to take on the school system by filing a lawsuit alleging there is systematic official promotion of religion at Webster Parish schools in violation of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the US Constitution."
  •  
    The school forcing religion among the students goes against the first Amendment, we as citizens of the U.S. have a freedom of religion and it is against the law for public schools to force a religion on anyone.
  •  
    Cole had a great offense when her school was promoting to pray. Which was something she did not please. To the fact that the school she attended was "public".
Bryan Pregon

Abortion laws in the US: Here are all the states pushing to restrict access - CNNPolitics - 2 views

  •  
    "These laws may be unenforceable because of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. But abortion opponents are hoping that the legal challenges will serve as a vehicle for the Supreme Court to eventually overturn the Roe ruling."
  •  
    banning abortions is against the constitution because the 14th amendment gives a women the right to have a abortion or not
  •  
    While I personally agree that abortions should be legal, the 14th amendment doesn't give any particular rights to anyone. The 14th amendment basically just says the government can't take away the inalienable rights away from legal citizens (such as freedom of speech, press, religion, right to a trial, etc.) Nowhere in the constitution does it guarantee an abortion for any reason. That's the exact reason this debate is so large and divided. There are no legal standards because we've never had the technology for these procedures before. The only standard is the Roe v. Wade decision which essentially says that first trimester, there can be no regulations. Second trimester, the government can impose regulations that are reasonably related to maternal health. Third, states are allowed to entirely prohibit third-trimester abortions. But even Roe v. Wade is just a supreme court decision that can be overturned.
Bryan Pregon

Texas bills on school chaplains, 10 Commandments merge church and state - The Washingto... - 1 views

  •  
    " "the Texas bill would've been an obviously unconstitutional establishment of religion, something prohibited by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Now, however, it comes under the disturbing category of 'Who knows?'""
Bryan Pregon

Iowa Lawmaker Wants To Bring Back The Death Penalty - 1 views

  •  
    I think life in prison would be worse than the death penalty to begin with
  • ...33 more comments...
  •  
    I think the death penalty is pointless. In my opinion all it does is give horrible criminals an easy way out. If I did something horrible enough to get the death penalty, I'd rather die than serve life in prison.
  •  
    Yup we are for sure with out a doubt falling back into a dark age.
  •  
    i think we should have the death penalty
  •  
    Capital punishment is scarier than going to jail. I think crime rates would go down if this came back.
  •  
    I think that the death penalty is wrong because they are trying to stop a murderer by murdering him themselves so really it's not much better then what the killer was doing himself.
  •  
    What would happen if the person was innocent after all?
  •  
    Yea its pointless cuz then there not going sever there crime and its a easy way out
  •  
    It will be interesting to hear Sorenson's argument as to why to changes things. Prisons are getting crowded but this is still Iowa. We still have a small population
  •  
    I think the death penalty is not a bad idea nor I think it is a good idea. They will suffer in jail or suffer in hell. My opinion is put them in jail. If it is not their time to die yet then it is not. If they did something as bad as kill someone then they do deserve to go to jail and suffer for life.
  •  
    I would agree with harvey. The crime rates would go down and death penalties are effective in other regions.
  •  
    Its not weather which one is worse, its that killing a person for killing another person is not only hypocritical but inhumane to today's society.
  •  
    I disagree with bringing the death penalty back to Iowa. We've taken it away twice, once in 1872 and the second time in 1965, so I feel that shows that we, as a state, don't want it. Also the death penalty isn't really a deterrent for crime. There is a really interesting website that shows so facts about murder rates and comparing states that do and don't have the death penalty. They have a ton of information and I would recommend that you go through the site a little if you're interested in this topic. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord
  •  
    I agree with Aaron, but i also think that justice should be served
  •  
    Aaron giving someone the death penalty is acceptable. Having life in prison is worse anyway and it just puts more people in danger if that person is still alive.
  •  
    better for the death penalty then life in prison.
  •  
    Maybe we need to start corporal punishment.
  •  
    Mr. Garner, it would cost more money to give somebody the death penalty then to have them spend life in prison. We live in a different type of world then when people had there heads chopped off and dragons happened to be there to save "johns" life. To me that's not what God intended us to do with people that made a mistake and yes a big one but everybody has a reason to something or there could be something seriously wrong with there head to commit a murder but its not always there fault.
  •  
    For 2011, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.7, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1 For 2010, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.6, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.9 For 2009, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.9, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.8 For 2008, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.2, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.3 http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord
  •  
    It seems like if the act of violence is bad enough to get the death penalty most of the people kill themselves before the law can.
  •  
    Would you rather spend the rest of your life in prison or be dead? Think about that!
  •  
    Mr. Valdivia how would it cost more to give the death penalty then to keep them in prison for life? That's right, IT WOULDN'T. And I'm not saying give the death penalty for 1 murder. Based on depravity and body counts they should be sentenced to death.
  •  
    unless you commited that bad of a crime i wouldn't worry about it coming back if your not gonna kill people
  •  
    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/CostsRptFinal.pdf Dylan pages 20 and 21 of the PDF I linked above, explain why the death penalty costs more to administer than life in prison with out parole. More specifically on page 20 under the heading Time on Death Row it says, "In California, a legislative commission concluded that it costs the state an extra $90,000 for each death row inmate per year compared to the costs of the same inmate housed in general population. With over 670 inmates on death row, that amounts to an additional yearly cost of $60 million solely attributable to the death penalty."
  •  
    Lets keep it simple say the death penalty would be cheaper than housing an inmate for life. Boom, Roasted.
  •  
    Well then we can change the process to a quick and easy death without all that court BS. And plus I'm a prison warden so you guys both don't know what you are talking about. Aaron. And Jeremy.
  •  
    FALSE. There is NO WAY you're a prison warden. The minimum age for a Warden is 21, plus you have to have lots of training. So someone of your prestige and experience, (not to mention your practically a 5 year old) would never be able to be a warden. Kthnxbye
  •  
    I am prison
  •  
    Dylan and Joe, The reason that the death penalty is more expensive (and always will be) is the courts have to make sure that the criminal that is convicted is 100 percent guilty. There can't be any room for doubt. This means that the state has to supply better (More expensive) lawyers for the suspected party, and the trial has to be more in depth, therefor much longer. We can't make this time shorter than it is, because as a country, we are will do everything we can to keep an Innocent man from dying. And to just keep the perpetrators in jail is much cheaper, as there is already a well set system in place, and one more person will not increase the cost of that system to go up in large amounts as much as the singled out attention a person on death row will.
  •  
    @ Dylan and Joe, if you both still think that the death penalty is cheaper, you are wrong, look at the 20th page Jeremy posted. @ Jared, ethically speaking, shouldn't any person who is accused of murder have an outrageously expensive lawyer anyways? If someone is going to be imprisoned for life, or going to be executed for a crime, should the one being executed receive a better lawyer?
  •  
    I think they should, but the person being put to jail for life has the chance to have new evidence pop up, and potentially let them eventually get out, they have the chance to get out on parole, they have the potential for choices. The man that is getting the death penalty have to be 100 percent sure. They don't have room to make mistakes. Ethically, I believe that people getting put away for life should have the same standards of 100 percent, but as I said, they have choices later on down the road. The dead don't.
  •  
    @ Payton. It is cheaper. I know for a fact. I AM A PRISON WARDEN.
  •  
    I think one would suffer more life in prison rather than getting the death penalty.
  •  
    @Peyton Are you trying to tell me its more expensive to keep someone alive in prison? this means that dude lives off our tax money. You will literally pay for his food, housing, and heck, that dude can even go lift for 3 hours a day and run his block! THink about that. State Champ.
  •  
    @ Dylan, you are not a prison warden, keep the topics on this page relevant to the conversation, and have some potential form of evidence to back up what you say. @ Joe, it is much less expensive to keep someone alive then execute them. The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. This process is needed in order to ensure that innocent men and woman are not executed for crimes they did not commit, and even with these protections the risk of executing an innocent person can not be completely eliminated. Example State: California How much they could save: With life in prison as the maximum punishment for 1st degree murder, they would save over 1 billion dollars a year. Money that could be saved per year for taxpayers: 90,000 dollars a year. Taxpayers save money if they do not use the death penalty. http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42 Besides, many murder victims PREFER the idea of Life without Parole. If you do not believe this, check out this site made by the victims families: https://www.aclunc.org/docs/criminal_justice/death_penalty/Voices_from_California_Crime_Victims_for_Alternatives_to_the_Death_Penalty.pdf I have the feeling that nobody will even look at these links, but they are blunt evidence that it is cheaper, and makes more people happy, then when we use the death penalty. Oh.... By the way, 2nd degree murders (who cannot receive the death penalty) can do all that which you stated before Joe. Why should first degree murders be any different?
  •  
    The death penalty is dumb you should just let that sever his/or hers time in prison.
Jeremy Vogel

Larry King to moderate 3rd party candidate debate - 0 views

  •  
    Larry King, the celebrated talk show host accustomed to A-list interview guests, has agreed to moderate a debate featuring a squad of minor-party presidential candidates. The former CNN giant will guide next Tuesday's debate in Chicago, which will be broadcast on the Internet. The candidates taking part are the Libertarian Party's Gary Johnson, the Green Party's Jill Stein, the Constitution Party's Virgil Goode and the Justice Party's Rocky Anderson.
  •  
    This should be interesting, and I'm glad that someone is giving third parties a chance to be heard. As King said, our political system isn't a two party system by law, and I strongly disagree with the two party system. It would be great if third parties could get more recognition.
1 - 20 of 34 Next ›
Showing 20 items per page