March 30, 2005

THE CONSTITUTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Yesterday, Peter Burnet posted this story: Colorado Court Bars Execution Because Jurors Consulted Bible (Kirk Johnson, New York Times, March 29th, 2005)

In a sharply divided ruling, Colorado's highest court on Monday upheld a lower court's decision throwing out the sentence of a man who was given the death penalty after jurors consulted the Bible in reaching a verdict.
How, then, to explain this:

Benjamin Franklin: Constitutional Convention Address on Prayer (delivered Thursday, June 28, 1787, Philadelphia, PA)

Mr. President:

The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other -- our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own wont of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

In this situation of this Assembly groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. -- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance.

I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall be become a reproach and a bye word down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.

Posted by David Cohen at March 30, 2005 7:56 AM
Comments

David:

Maybe the two can be squared if we remember that executives and legislatures are always made up of power-thirty, self-centered hypocrites who seek only personal gain, power and re-election, and therefore need all the spiritual succor they can get, while the judiciary is righteous, sober, honest and solomonic and would only be distracted by dangerous spirituality.

Posted by: Peter B at March 30, 2005 8:39 AM

Well, if nothing else, we know the Estes Park, Colo. trustee certainly has a shot at getting the voter recall election that threw him out of office reversed in the Colorado courts.

Posted by: John at March 30, 2005 8:57 AM

Sorry, I have to come out on the other side of this one. The Bible contains religious truths, I would hold, but it also contains history and--laws. It is improper for jurors to consult statute books on their own, whether the statutes of their own jurisdiction of those iof Deuteronomy.

If I were ever a juror my judgements would be informed by my faith and my values, but not by the laws of a long-dead near-eastern society.

Posted by: Lou Gots at March 30, 2005 10:26 AM

Mr. Gots;

But how do you know that the jurors who consulted the Bible during the deliberations hadn't formed their "faith and values" from it in the first place, and were merely looking for clarification of them? Would it have been OK if the jurors in question had simply memorized the Bible and thought of that instead of consulting a paper copy?

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at March 30, 2005 10:58 AM

--I would hold, but it also contains history and--laws.--

Talk about international law......

Posted by: Sandy P at March 30, 2005 11:06 AM

Lou: I hear what you're saying, but what really makes this decision bizarre (and unambiguously antireligion) is that:

Lawyers for Mr. Harlan also specifically urged the jurors to consider biblical wisdom, according to the Supreme Court's decision, with a request that they find mercy in their hearts "as God ultimately took mercy on Abraham."

The lawyers also made several references to Mr. Harlan's soul and his habit of reading the Bible with his father, the court said.

In other words, consulting the bible is so uniquely horrible that we're going to reverse death sentences for that reason even if the defendant introduces it into the discussion. Ordinarily, of course, a mere failure to object (far short of raising the issue oneself) puts it outside the scope of a proper appeal.

Posted by: David Cohen at March 30, 2005 11:21 AM

I was raised in a Southern Baptist home. If I did not believe in God and the Bible nothing would restrain me!

A court that does not place my hand on the Bible is not guaranteed the truth. Without a higher power only self interest would guides this redeemed sinner.

Posted by: Ben DoubleCrossed at March 30, 2005 2:03 PM

Explanations? Explanations! We don't need no stinkin' explanations!!

Posted by: Luciferous at March 30, 2005 4:02 PM

What would a judge say in response to a question from a juror: "Why are rape and murder illegal?"

Posted by: jim hamlen at March 30, 2005 4:29 PM

Jim: "Because historically they've been used to oppress racial minorities, women and the differently gendered."

Posted by: David Cohen at March 30, 2005 4:40 PM

But, that's why I invest in the stock market.

Posted by: jim hamlen at March 30, 2005 4:45 PM

Lol

Posted by: David Cohen at March 31, 2005 8:13 AM

Unless Ben is being sarcastic, which he does not seem to be, I welcome him to this endless discussion.

What I said all along, Ben.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 1, 2005 2:05 AM

Harry: I assume you mean, "Unless Ben is not being sarcastic".

Posted by: David Cohen at April 1, 2005 7:34 AM
« SELF-REFERENCE ALERT: | Main | THE UNIVERSAL IDIOSYNCRASY (via Paul Cella): »