Okla. to kill inmate with vet drug

[CitadelGrad]

Strict Constitutionalist saying the wording in the Constitution is subjective.

The term is actually "strict constructionist", not "strict constitutionalist". And no, strict constructionists do not maintain that there can be no ambiguous wording in the Constitution. They only maintain that where the intent is clear (and most of the Constitution is quite clear), that it should not be negated by a simple majority in the federal legislature or by judicial decree. Obviously, what constitutes "cruel and unusual" can change with the times. It would be best if that particular phrase was better defined through the constitutional amendment process, rather than the whims of the federal courts or legislatures.

[Appaholic]

Since Skelly is so concerned with the wording in the constitution, let's make execution whatever the previous year's number one cause of death nationally was....heart attack? we can induce...cancer? we can inject....whatever....seems to me the way we've been executing prisoners (electric chair, lethal injection) are more unusual and therefore, since we don't have the experience or knowledge, more cruel....let 'em experience painful debilitating death (accelerated of course) like most of the rest of the population due to heart disease or cancer....

Oooooooo.... inducing a heart attack?

You mean... like lethal injection?

Sure, but I'm not concerned with whether he's awake to feel the fokking attack. He, like most...nay, ALL law abiding citizens, should feel what a heart attack victim feels. His death certainly shouldn't be postponed becuase the drugs used to put him to sleep PRIOR to the attack may not work...fok it...inject 'em...save the sleeping drugs for unwanted dogs....

[Appaholic]

Strict Constitutionalist saying the wording in the Constitution is subjective.

The term is actually "strict constructionist", not "strict constitutionalist". And no, strict constructionists do not maintain that there can be no ambiguous wording in the Constitution. They only maintain that where the intent is clear (and most of the Constitution is quite clear), that it should not be negated by a simple majority in the federal legislature or by judicial decree. Obviously, what constitutes "cruel and unusual" can change with the times. It would be best if that particular phrase was better defined through the constitutional amendment process, rather than the whims of the federal courts or legislatures.

Quit making sense CG...

[clenz]

Fuck the heart attack.


Let fuckers like this feel what the person they killed felt

[Cap'n Cat]

I prefer slower, more painful methods.

Such as reading your posts?

[AZGrizFan]

I prefer slower, more painful methods.

Such as reading your posts?

That's why I keep them short.

[Cap'n Cat]

Such as reading your posts?

That's why I keep them short.