A Question of Logic

[lilithu]

Did you miss the part where he said that there is a death penalty according to this amendment?

Why do people keep bringing this up as if it's relevant? Obviously there is a death penalty. There was one at the time the Fifth Amendment was drafted. There is one NOW. Who is disputing that there is no death penalty? What we are talking about is whether the Constitution grants govt the right to impose a death penalty.

"...that it is itself not a justification of the death penalty" means that, according to this amendment, the death penalty isn't a requirement or necessary, but it is obviously an option.

The death penalty exists but the Fifth Amendment cannot be used to justify its existence.

 

[Magic Man]

Why do people keep bringing this up as if it's relevant? Obviously there is a death penalty. There was one at the time the Fifth Amendment was drafted. There is one NOW. Who is disputing that there is no death penalty? What we are talking about is whether the Constitution grants govt the right to impose a death penalty.

The fifth amendment, as I and others have now shown, grants them the right to impose the death penalty. That's why they say that life can't be taken away without due process. If they didn't want to go either way with it, they would have left that part out. Them including it means that with due process, the government can take away your right to life (along with other things). That means that the government has the right to impose the death penalty. It doesn't mean anything else.

The death penalty exists but the Fifth Amendment cannot be used to justify its existence.

No, it can, you just refuse to see it.

 

[lilithu]

The fifth amendment, as I and others have now shown, grants them the right to impose the death penalty.

Oy! Gott im Himmel! Weh ist mir!!

First:

It doesn't grant the right of the govt to kill... it identifies that the govt already has that right.

The govt had been granted the right before hand... the 5th amendment only regulates it.

Second: If the Constitution granted govt the right to kill people, the Supreme Court could NEVER have banned it, not even for a minute.

 

[Magic Man]

Oy! Gott im Himmel! Weh ist mir!!

First:

Second: If the Constitution granted govt the right to kill people, the Supreme Court could NEVER have banned it, not even for a minute.

There's no difference in granting the government the right, and identifying that the government has that right. The second only implies that another part of the Constitution gives the government that right and this part acknowledges that other part. Either way, it is saying that the government has that right.

 

[lilithu]

There's no difference in granting the government the right, and identifying that the government has that right.

Yes, there is. If the right is not granted elsewhere and it's not granted in the Fifth Amendment, then it is not granted.

The second only implies that another part of the Constitution gives the government that right and this part acknowledges that other part.

Please identify WHERE.

Again I point out that if the Constitution granted govt the right to kill, the Supreme Court could not have banned it. Heck, the states that ban it now would be violating the Constitution.

 

[Willamena]

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property(B), without due process of law(A);

Lil, in saying that "If not A then not B" does not equal "If A then B" I think you are quite right. In regards to the above sentence I think the second part would be more accurately characterised as "B only if A" and not "B if A".

That makes sense.

I'm not a legal expert but I would imagine that this only implies that there is a death penalty and due process is prerequisite of that sentence, and that it is itself not a justification of the death penalty.

It essentially says, "If there is punishment, capital or otherwise,..."

 

[lilithu]

"If you don't take the MCAT, you can't get into med school."

So, in your opinion, have I now granted you the right to get into med school??

 

[Magic Man]

Yes, there is. If the right is not granted elsewhere and it's not granted in the Fifth Amendment, then it is not granted.

It is granted in the fifth amendment. When it identifies that the government has that right, that means it's saying that the government has that right. I don't know how to make that any clearer.

Please identify WHERE.

Again I point out that if the Constitution granted govt the right to kill, the Supreme Court could not have banned it. Heck, the states that ban it now would be violating the Constitution.

No, states can choose not to use it. As I have already said, the fifth amendment doesn't say "you must kill some criminals". It simply says "You may kill some criminals". If states don't want to, they don't have to according to that. It only gives them the right, not the obligation.

 

[Willamena]

It is granted in the fifth amendment. When it identifies that the government has that right, that means it's saying that the government has that right. I don't know how to make that any clearer.

If I understand your dispute properly, I believe "capital punishment" is incidental to the rights mentioned in the 5th Amendment.

Governments don't have rights; rather, they grant them to "We, the People..."

 

[Magic Man]

"If you don't take the MCAT, you can't get into med school."

So, in your opinion, have I now granted you the right to get into med school??

Nope. But if you say "If you take the MCAT, you can get into med school", you 've given me the right to get into med school as long as I meet the prerequisite. You know, kind of like "If you go through due process, you can take away someone's right ot life" gives you the right to take away someone's life.

 

[lilithu]

Nope. But if you say "If you take the MCAT, you can get into med school", you 've given me the right to get into med school as long as I meet the prerequisite. You know, kind of like "If you go through due process, you can take away someone's right ot life" gives you the right to take away someone's life.

EXCEPT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT SAYS. It says people cannot "be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of the law." In other words,"You can't get into med school without taking the MCAT."

Did you forget the whole: 'If not A then not B' thing and how is does NOT equal 'If A then B'?

 

[Magic Man]

EXCEPT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT SAYS. It says people cannot "be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of the law." In other words,"You can't get into med school without taking the MCAT."

Did you forget the whole: 'If not A then not B' thing and how is does NOT equal 'If A then B'?

Nope. I remember it. The problem is that you're applying it universally. It doesn't work that way. For instance, we'll go back to cars and fuel. If you say "My car can't go, if it doesn't have fuel", it does mean the same thing as "My car can go, if it does have fuel". I hope you can see that. Now we just substitute in there "My right to life can't be taken away, if I don't go through due process" means the same as "My right to life can be taken away, if I do go through due process". The operative part here is "to be able to" or "can".

 

[McBell]

Um...he only said what Poison and others here have been saying. The 5th amendment doesn't say "The death penalty is acceptable", but it does say that life (among other things) cannot be taken away without due process. That leads directly to the conclusion that life can be taken away with due process. As he said, and others said, that doesn't mean it should be the punishment in every case, but it certainly can be according to that amendment.

Good luck.

 

[Willamena]

/me hums "...we, the people, in order to form a more perfect union..."

 

[Aqualung]

Be quiet, let me think.


If my car doesn't have gas, it won't start.

That means, if my car started, it definitely had gas.

So, I can't be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.

That means that if I've been deprived of life, liberty, or property, than it must have been in the presnece of due process.


Ok, now, my car won't start without gas.

But, even if there is gas, that doesn't necessarily mean it will start.

So, I can't be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.

But just because there is due process, that doesn't necessarily mean I can be be deprived of life, liberty, or property.


So, it seems, due process is not the only consideration for deprivation of life, liberty, or property, based on the wording of the ammendment, but it certainly a necessary consideration.

 

[McBell]

So, it seems, due process is not the only consideration for deprivation of due process, based on the wording of the ammendment, but it certainly a necessary consideration.

Is this by chance a typo?

 

[Aqualung]

Is this by chance a typo?

Thanks. Fixed it.

 

[lilithu]

For instance, we'll go back to cars and fuel. If you say "My car can't go, if it doesn't have fuel", it does mean the same thing as "My car can go, if it does have fuel". I hope you can see that.

Um, nope, I can't. Because they are NOT logically equivalent. "That's like you saying "2+2=5. I hope you can see that."

Honestly mball, you have conceded that "If you don't take the MCAT, you can't get into med school" does NOT grant you the right to get into med school.
That should be the end of the argument.

 

[lilithu]

It is granted in the fifth amendment. When it identifies that the government has that right, that means it's saying that the government has that right.

It doesn't identify that govt has the right to do it. It acknowledges that govt does it.

No, states can choose not to use it.

If capital punishment is a right granted to govt, individual courts would be able to choose not to impose it but states CANNOT ban it. That is the point of a "right."

That said, I agree with Willa. Rights are given to people, not to govts. Which brings me yet again to the fact that the Bill of Rights was written to protect our Rights. In other words, to limit the power of govt, not to expand it. The purpose of the Fifth Amendment is to protect our Right to due process (and not to have to face double jeopardy or be forced to testify against ourselves). It doesn't grant govt anything. It limits govt's power over us, just like all the other amendments in the Bill of RIGHTS.

 

[McBell]

The purpose of the Fifth Amendment is to protect our Right to due process (and not to have to face double jeopardy or be forced to testify against ourselves). It doesn't grant govt anything. It limits govt's power over us, just like all the other amendments in the Bill of RIGHTS.

Yet it was the Fifth Amendment, more specifically the line:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
​

that showed that capital punishment was in fact Constitutional.
Funny that.