Jim DeMint
U.S. Senator, South Carolina
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Comments on Court Ruling on Death Penalty for Child Rapists |
|
|
Posted by Senator Jim DeMint |
06/26/2008 - 02:31:28 PM |
|
|
It was with dismay and disbelief that I read yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Kennedy v. The People of Louisiana. In the majority opinion, which is a perfect description of what the court produced in this case, Justice Kennedy stated: “[B]ased both on consensus and our own independent judgment, our holding is that a death sentence for one who raped but did not kill a child, is unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.”
Under what coherent system of jurisprudence would the justices’ view of consensus and their own “independent judgment” of what is right and wrong form the basis for a decision on an express provision of the written U.S. Constitution?
Did the justices conduct a poll? Did the decision of Louisiana’s elected representatives -- that the brutal rape of a child is worthy of the death penalty -- violate moral and policy preferences of the justices in the majority? Is that a sufficient basis for five liberal activist justices to find something unconstitutional, amending the Constitution with their own opinions?
In his dissent, Justice Samuel Alito wrote: "I have little doubt that, in the eyes of ordinary Americans, the very worst child rapists -- predators who seek out and inflict serious physical and emotional injury on defenseless young children -- are the epitome of moral depravity."
The court must decide the constitutionality of laws in the light and judgment of the history and text of our written Constitution, not on the basis of personal opinion. When the court relies on personal opinion or its view of what constitutes a consensus to overturn legislation enacted by the people’s elected representatives, it violates the constitutional separation of powers.
Article III of the Constitution does not assign to any federal court the power to act as a super-legislature.
The national government has no general police power and it is up to the people of each state to decide what punishment best fits crimes committed within their borders. The people of Louisiana determined that a perpetrator who commits the heinous and perverted act of raping a child so destroys the life of the vulnerable child that he should face the possibility of forfeiting his own life.
To this end, Justice Alito explained: “Laws enacted by the state legislatures are presumptively constitutional, and until today, this Court has not held that capital child rape laws are unconstitutional. Consequently, upholding the constitutionality of such a law would not ‘extend’ or ‘expand’ the death penalty; rather, it would confirm the status of presumptive constitutionality that such laws have enjoyed up to this point.”
This law, in no way, deviates from the current moral consensus. The court was not asked to render its opinion on whether or not they personally believed Louisiana’s law was right, but whether or not it violated the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. Discussing the court’s need to exercise its “own judgment” about the “moral ground” for barring the death penalty for child rapists is simply not relevant to the case. It has nothing to do with constitutionality of the law.
The people of Louisiana and four other states made a legislative determination. Despite the fact that the decision of these states violates neither the text nor the history of the Constitution, yesterday five members of the court decided they knew better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| Office Locations |
|
Charleston
112 Custom House
200 East Bay St
Charleston, SC 29401
P: 843-727-4525
F: 843-722-4923
|
Columbia
1901 Main St
Suite 1475
Columbia, SC 29201
P: 803-771-6112
F: 803-771-6455
|
Greenville
105 North Spring St
Suite 109
Greenville, SC 29601
P: 864-233-5366
F: 864-271-8901
|
Washington, D.C.
340 Russell
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
P: 202-224-6121
F: 202-228-5143
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
