Author Archives: johnlocke

by | September 17, 2017 · 7:37 pm

On Our Heads Be It: The Death of Capital Punishment

If it is agreed upon by all citizens of this nation that each member therein maintains the right to life, liberty, and property, it can so too be established that there is a present practice in need of inhibition. Such a practice is that of capital punishment. Capital punishment entails the revoking of life from one who has been accused and proven guilty of a crime, the degree of which has been decided to merit death as an equitable punishment within a court of law.

As this punishment has implications extending beyond an individual person, it is necessary to recognize it as a public issue. As society agrees each citizen has the right to life, and that no other citizen has the right to revoke the life of another person, except in cases of self-defense, it is evident that capital punishment is a violation of this principle; for in the implementation of this punishment, each citizen, as represented by the jury responsible for conviction, bears the corresponding responsibility for the infliction of such a punishment. As each citizen then is held partially responsible for taking life of another citizen, just as they had administered the lethal injection themselves, they are in violation of their own principle.

Furthermore, within our Constitution, it is held that citizens of this nation shall not “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The inherent implication within this doctrine is that there will be no unreasonable or unfair aspects of the judicial process that can constitutionally result in the revoking of one’s life, liberty, or property. In arguing that this assumption may be upheld, it is evident that capital punishment cannot be constitutionally supported. Because of the irreversibility of this punishment, a fair or due process would be just as certain in determining the guilt as death itself operates with absolute certainty. However, this is rarely the case in terms of the death sentence. In according capital punishment, any bit of uncertainty cannot be abided while still holding that the process of law through which the criminal has participated is due or just.

Lastly, in accepting the principle that no citizen of this country should be subject to “cruel or unusual punishment” it is clear that capital punishment lacks constitutional support. In considering this clause, it is first important to establish the meaning of “cruel.” As this word implies something that causes the suffering or pain of an individual, it cannot be argued that capital punishment does neither of those things. That passing from death to life is not painful, that humans are capable of making it painless, that they will insure no suffering for the recipient of this punishment is a task that cannot, has not, been accomplished. Therefore, the death penalty constitutes a punishment that is, by definition, cruel.

In accepting the responsibility of the death penalty as citizens who assent to its implementation, that due process cannot be accorded with certainty equivalent to that of the punishment itself, that the punishment cannot be outside of the term “cruel,” it is evident that capital punishment is not upheld by our constitution and must be nullified forthwith.

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Locke

by | · 7:14 pm

His Majesty, the King of the United States of America?

Over 13,000 Executive Orders have been issued since the inception of the United States of America. The most vigorous in issuance was Franklin Roosevelt with 3,728. That’s an average of roughly three hundred and eight per year. Society has become complacent with executive orders with the last six presidents issuing well over two hundred and fifty each, with the exception of George H.W. Bush. Many fear that this is a concerning trend and that executive orders should be issued sparingly. However, the issuance of many executive orders is not a problem, so long as these prescriptions are done for the good of the people.

There has been a decline in executive orders as the standard of the 1930’s and 1940’s was drastically larger than that of today. That time was undoubtedly a moment in our society that was characterized by hardship as the United States faced an immense economic crisis and global war. Many problematic situations arose that had no statutes to amend them. This is where the power of prerogative shines.

In the early days, King George, III exercised a substantial amount of prerogative. This was not problematic, and did not become an issue until the thirteen American colonies felt that the power of prerogative, carried out through parliament or a king and executed through the magistrate, was found to be more harmful to the people than it was good which infringed upon their God-given liberty. It is only heaven to which people can appeal when they feel usurped by a King, President, or Magistrate’s prerogative. God blessed upon man rational faculties and the desire for self-preservation. This lead us to the American Revolutionary War, and the founding of the United States of America. God granted us liberty. Man granted the power of prerogative to his executive, and reserved the right to revoke it should it become harmful to the people. King George, III infringed that liberty, overextending his prerogative, so the people justly revoked it in an effort of self-preservation.

Today, in our society we have self-correcting systems that allow the president’s powers to be checked. We know this as the Supreme Court. This prevents the president from exercising his prerogative in an unconstitutional manner. This is not a perfect system though. Damage can still occur. For example, the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. This was challenged in Korematsu v United States, where the supreme court sided with the Government and found the internment camps to be constitutional. In the end, it really is God who can only be final judge. Let’s say this happened to a different substantial population, such as the Irish, English, or German populations in the US. It is then that we might see the revoking of prerogative, and possibly the dissolution of government. Let’s just call a strike down of a president’s executive order a “mini-revolt.”

It’s not a problem that modern presidents pump out executive orders by the hundreds. We were born free and we bestowed upon our chosen leader the power to make independent decisions should they serve the interests of the people. We do this with the knowledge that should he or she ere in their ways that we have a right to revoke their prerogative; sometimes through our courts, and other times by taking up arms. People, as rational beings, must be fairly content with the latest batch of executive orders as they have only opted to have their issues with them resolved peacefully through the courts…at least since 1776 anyway.

See Also: https://qz.com/899741/how-many-executive-orders-has-donald-trump-signed-compared-to-barack-obama/

Leave a Comment

Filed under Locke

Tagged as , ,

by | · 4:21 am

The Worth of Labor

Human nature is supported by the three pillars of fundamental rights – life, liberty, and property. In an increasingly modernized and capitalist world, the key to reserving those rights revolves around the idea of capital. As a result, the increase of the minimum wages is essential for conserving the rights of the people. By failing to provide a sufficient wage, people become incapable of obtaining those three essential rights. By losing those rights, people lose their personal liberty, and thus lose a proper government which is said to work towards both the individual and the nation’s best interests at all times. Therefore, it would be unconstitutional and irresponsible to not propose an increase of the minimum wage.

With life, liberty, and especially property in mind, I will leave my reader to consider how minimum wage affects people in the current age.

For starters, America has increased its minimum wage over twenty times during the over the last 80 years in order to keep up with the increasing costs of property. In 1938, it was set at 25 cents which is the equivalent of $4.11 dollars which is arguably enough to provide for the essentials for human survival including food and shelter. However, in the current year of 2017, statistics have shown the federal minimum wage is not indexed with inflation which means that low-wage workers do not have “a wage that keeps pace with the rising costs of goods and services.” Even in 1968, the minimum wage purchasing power was 53% higher than today’s when accounting for inflation.

As a result, “an individual working a typical 40-hour work week at minimum wage would not be able to afford a one bedroom apartment for their family.” It is estimated that one must work 92 hours a week in order to afford a one bedroom apartment in California at minimum wage.

That is spending more than half of the available hours in a total week working just to have enough to afford a shelter. Let us not forget the necessity for food, how that cost increases with the addition of family, and many other things that are essential to keep working such as transportation. I ask the reader, then, does that fulfill the criteria for life? If enslaving more than half of your waking hours to a menial job that affords a roof over one’s head, does that fall under liberty? What choice does one have when it is either work or starve on the streets?

Most importantly, it comes to the question of property. If labor is considered property, and so many hours every week is required for a roof, then one must ask the question of whether that labor is valued fairly. It is the federal government’s responsibility to ensure the promises of life, liberty, and property to its citizens, yet those promises are compromised when the value of labor lies dissonant with human nature. By allowing the value of one’s labor decrease, then one’s very own property is being forfeited.

When the people cannot even own their time and their labor, then they do not truly own their lives. If they do not own and control their lives, then it is their natural rights that is threatened. By failing to increase minimum wage in order to allow the people a standard of living, we are failing the constitution and ultimately, even our very own nature.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Locke

Tagged as , , ,