Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (6037)	8/19/2001 5:51:35 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 93284

That might have missed it; they weren't infallible. <s> And maybe they did not consider that it should be banned. Maybe they considered in justified for some crimes. The 5th Amendment could certainly lead one to believe that: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. They mention capital punishment three times in that one paragraph. Hardly an indication they did not think about it. I understand that is an amendment; many of the people involved in drafting the Constitution were also involved in drafting and passing the BIll of Rights. Seriously though. The Framers/Colonies were able to reconcile it as did the Courts. So perhaps I'm still lagging. But the Framers and the colonies may have assumed that equal protection and equal application of the law [and penalty] were a given. These were practical men, men of the world. They did not live in ivory towers. They understood prosecutors, judges, and juries make mistakes and sometimes are plain malicious. And still they not only did not outlaw capital punishment, they provided for it. Depends on what the wealth distribution is, if the wealth is concentrated at the top half and the bottom half is living in poverty, it doesn't follow that everyone is living better. If the US has double the poverty rate of Europe [which is pretty close] but the per capita GDP is higher in the US than Europe do you conclude that everyone is living better in the US than the major countries in Europe? Define "poverty rate". Are exactly the same standards being applied to the US and Europe? If so, is the metric for "poverty rate" weighted so that the Europeans come out ahead? The citizens of the US are hardly living in poverty. Some are; nothing close to half. Of blacks, one of the poorest groups, over half are middle class. Is equal distribution of wealth the greatest good? Why not go for communism then? Let me bring up another matter that (I feel) relates to this. It certainly appears that the greatest rate of scientific and engineering advance (and also financial innovation) is occurring in the US. Does that count for nothing? These matters do seem to relate directly to the amount of freedom in a society. it's the elected officials that count How about public figures? I see your Lott and raise you Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.