- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Yes. Every human breathing out Carbon Dioxide and farting methane is having a serious impact on the climate. They must immediately stop their breathing and farting, or else the world will end. Failing their voluntary action of simply keeling over dead, they must pay an immense carbon tax to strongly encourage them to reduce their natural but harmful emissions of Greenhouse gasses.
And after they die, their bodies must be catapulted into space (with carbon-neutral wooden catapults), forever frozen in ice (via a carbon neutral process of traveling to the arctic regions), or their children taxed again on carbon credits, since burning and natural decomposition would permit additional greenhouse emissions to destroy the delicate climate temperature balance earth has maintained for eons before humankind started its climate destruction of breathing and farting and decomposing.
Well, at least the government will get a bunch of tax money to spend on green projects like planting trees, growing algae, and metal-less woodworking.
The only way to effectively "prevent" any manner of crime, violent or otherwise, is to either, slaughter the entire human race into extinction, or ensure every human now and into the forever future, becomes and remains a mental vegetable. Otherwise, humanity will ever continue to act upon their natural and inherent powers, of which includes their ability to kill another. The point of Capital Punishment is to prevent, in perpetuity, that the affected can never again commit such crime as convicted.
Laws don't stop crime, and prevention doesn't stop crime, Justice and Morality stops crime.
The way you stop innocents from being convicted is to raise the standard of proof. Innocent until proven guilty is clearly not effective enough. Society needs to be willing to let hundreds of murders go free, rather than risk convicting one innocent man. Murderers can be dealt with through individual self-defense- capital punishment on the spot by the witnesses.
So you would deny human beings their natural and self-evident right to self defense? The problem with your philosophy is that it can't work. You can't prevent a human from killing another human if they so chose without making every single human ever to be born into a mental vegetable.
Arguing whether it should ever be right for a human to kill is irrelevant to the fact that they can, and do, and will continue to do so in the future, merely because doing so is within their natural and inherent power. Because this is so, equity requires, and self-defense compels, that individuals, and society, must dispense capital punishment in certain circumstances. The only question is when these circumstances require it.
I support Justice and Equity. All Human beings have a right to self-defense, this carries over to a society's collective right to self-defense.
When defense of the self or of the society merits it, death is and ought to be and remain, an option. This extends to war, and capital punishment. War being Societal Defense against another Society, and Capital Punishment being societal defense on behalf of the individual where necessity did not require, or could not have operated, immediate self-defense.
Simply because a law was passed doesn't make said law lawful or constitutional. It took a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit Alcohol, yet one is conspicuously lacking for these other substances - so where does the lawful authority come from to prohibit them?
It's prohibition is unlawful and unconstitutional in the first place, so yes, it should be legal. Property rights need to be restored.
It took a Constitutional Amendment to permit the US government to prohibit Alcohol - yet one is conspicuously lacking for all these other prohibited substances. While the States may have such a right to regulate business trade of substances (substance trafficking), generally they lack authority to interfere with private property rights.
I wouldn't use it even if it were legal though.
That isnt what the Establishment Clause means. What is means is that the US Govt cannot in ANY way promote any religion at all. The government of the US was formed to be purely secular, as in, indifferent to religion entirely. They are supposed to stay well away from it. -----
Cite your source for the legal decision determining that interpretation. Consistent with the interpretive understanding evident in the Federalists and Anti-Federalists papers.
As for Swearing- Legal Maxims predate the Constitution, and govern it's lawful and legal interpretation. "To Swear is to call God as a witness and is an act of Divine Reverence." Prove otherwise. You should try reading a Legal Dictionary.