People, especially well-known Governors, spouting off at the mouth about socialism. This is the level of conversation we’re trying to avoid in this country.

We can discuss the merits of issues without being so simple and naive as berating someone as a socialist.

Later tonight, John Allen Muhammad will be executed for murder. Muhammad was the mastermind of the Washington DC area sniper attacks in 2002.

The Supreme Court and Virginia Governor Tim Kaine have refused clemency for Muhammad.

The man behind the 2002 sniper attacks in and around Washington DC will be put to death later, after a last-ditch appeal was thrown out.
John Allen Muhammad’s lawyers say he is mentally ill, but Virginia Governor Tim Kaine rejected a plea for clemency.

On Monday, the US Supreme Court quashed an appeal for a stay of execution.
Muhammad, 48, will face a lethal injection for the murder of Dean Harold Meyers, one of 10 people killed during the attacks.

There is much contemporary debate over the death penalty – both on its legality and morality. I will touch merely on the legality of the death penalty and leave morality for another day.

The death penalty has long had a presence in the American system of law. Traitors during the American revolution were tried and executed. In the 19th century, felons were hanged for their crimes. Today, the federal government, as well as states, executes criminals for certain crimes.

Regardless, some are opposed and call the death penalty a violation of one’s protection from cruel and unusual punishment via the 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

This is clear contradiction of the text itself. The proponents of a ban implicitly admit this and instead rely on an evolving interpretation of the Constitution as a basis for their argument. Writing in Roper v. Simmons, Justice Kennedy and the court decided to ban the death penalty for minors based on the “evolving standards of decency.”

As not to digress to much on this type of interpretation of our Constitution, I will merely leave off at saying I abhor the practice. It leaves our Constitution and the entire framework of law beneath it at the mercy of the conscience of men, or in the case of the Supreme Court, five unelected officers with lifetime appointments. The society has the free will and means to implement their evolving standards of decency in law and needs not the help of an unelected legislature.

The Constitution is to be read as it was written and should mean today what it meant upon its adoption. This is a safe standard by which the liberty of all can be guarded, but it leaves open the opportunity for a sufficient number of people, over the due course of time, to make the changes it feels necessary.

When the Constitution was adopted, the Death Penalty was not only permitted, but also written in to the document itself. If there is an issue where the intention of our framers is more clear, than I have yet to find it. The death penalty for the punishment of crimes committed against liberty and society is permitted by the very document that we recognize as the supreme law of our land.

*As a note, much of the logic of my argument and general thoughts are derived from an article written by Justice Antonin Scalia. Titled “God’s Justice and Ours,” the article appeared in the Christian Law Review, No. 156.

U.S. Rules Revamp Gains as Frank Sets Vote, Senate Bill ReadiedHealth care has overshadowed most other news out of Washington DC in the past several weeks, er, months. That means, financial regulation has slipped through the cracks.

Representative Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd, Democrats of Massachusetts and Connecticut, respectively, are working on massive new legislation that will serious overhaul how our financial markets are needed.

On the surface, many people won’t object, especially after the turmoil we’ve been through over the last year, but if you dig a little deeper, you’ll see what the problem is.

Essentially, we’re going to give the federal government  TARP 4 Ever. In other words, dramatic, game-changing regulation and resuscitation of financial institutions banks could become the every day norm in America.

Resources

• Bloomberg | U.S. Rules Revamp Gains as Frank Sets Vote, Senate Bill Readied
• WSJ | Clash Looms on Banks
• WSJ | Bank Crackdown Draws Criticism
• Marketwatch | Critics take Frank ‘too-big-to-fail’ bill to task

That’s $3,000,000,000,000.

The new number comes from Senator Judd Gregg and includes some funny math. You can read an explanation of that at HotAir.

Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee today commented on the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) more detailed cost estimate of the manager’s amendment to the House health reform bill.

Senator Gregg stated, “The CBO estimate released last night finally sheds light on the smoke and mirrors game the majority has been playing with the cost of their health care reform proposal. Over the first 10 years, this legislation builds in gross new spending of $1.7 trillion – and most of the new spending doesn’t even start until 2014. Once that spending is fully phased in, the House Democratic bill rings up at more than $3 trillion over ten years.

As a side note, Heritage says $2.6 trillion.

Obviously, the real answer to how much health care reform will cost is: We don’t know. Including cuts to medicare and tax increases, it’s obvious that the plan will be expensive.

This is more than a Republican Party talking point, however. Spending this much money could have serious repercussions on the fiscal solvency of the federal government. Entitlements never get smaller. Social safety net programs, like Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security and now health care, only get bigger.

With that in mind, even if health care does lower the deficit over the next ten years and even if it only costs $1.2 trillion in that decade, what about the next ten years, or twenty?

It’s November 7, 2009 and I’m blogging again.